Machine-independent intermediate languages

[Dave Berry LFCS]

In article <e4ITv#4cfCcm=eric at snark.UUCP> eric at snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>Certainly. It's called 'C'.
>
>No flames about C's problems, please. I know it's not perfect. But the *fact*
>is that it is now filling the niche in the computer science ecology that you're
>describing -- and you haven't advanced any compelling reasons to abandon its
>HLLness in favor a search for a hypothetical uMIIL.

C isn't the only language filling this niche.  LISP is another.  C is
presumably better for languages where efficiency is a prime concern,
and LISP for those requiring garbage collection, etc.   The choice
is also affected by the availability of implementations for the desired
hardware; LISP would presumably be a better choice for a LISP machine.

As an aside, I've heard both disparagingly described as "portable assemblers"
(and I've heard their proponents take that as a compliment).
Dave Berry,	Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh.
		db%lfcs.ed.ac.uk at nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
		<Atlantic Ocean>!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!db