Machine-independent intermediate languages

[Herman Rubin]

In article <831 at etive.ed.ac.uk>, db at lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry (LFCS)) writes:
> In article <e4ITv#4cfCcm=eric at snark.UUCP> eric at snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) writes:

			.....................

> 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).

Neither C nor LISP can be described correctly as a portable assembler.  A 
portable assembler should have the property that anything which the machine
can do can be relatively easily described in the language in such a way that
the resulting object code does what the programmer, understanding the machine
instructions, timing, and limitations, wants it to do, and how he wants it
done.

Thus a portable assembler must be able to produce efficient versatile code.
It should also be easy to write, with any construct that the  programmer 
feels useful relatively easy to insert.  I would find such a gadget very
useful.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin at l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)