XPost: alt.folklore.computers   
   From: Peter@Iron-Spring.com   
      
   On 1/6/26 14:24, c186282 wrote:   
   > On 1/6/26 07:16, Waldek Hebisch wrote:   
   >> In alt.folklore.computers c186282  wrote:   
   >>    
   >>>    Hmm ... look at all the GNU 'compilers' -   
   >>>    FORTRAN, COBOL, Ada, 'D', M2, Rust,C++,   
   >>>    G++, even Algol-68. None are 'compilers'   
   >>>    per-se, but to-'C' TRANSLATORS. So, 'C',   
   >>>    pretty much All Are One And One Is All.   
   >>   
   >> No.  Compiler as first stage translate given language to a   
   >> common representation.  This representatiton is different   
   >> than C.  Ada and GNU Pascal have parametrized types, there   
   >> is nothing like that in C.  C++ (and some other languages)   
   >> have exceptions, C do not have them.  There are several   
   >> smaller things, for example Ada or Pascal modulo is different   
   >> that C/Fortran modulo.  During optimization passes gcc   
   >> keeps such information, to allow better optimization and   
   >> error reporting.   
   >>   
   >> There were/are compilers that work by translating to C.  But   
   >> this has limitations: generated code typically is worse because   
   >> language specific information is lost in translation.  Error   
   >> reporting is worse because translator is not doing as many   
   >> analyzes as gcc do.  For those reasons compilers in gcc   
   >> generate common representation which contains sum of features   
   >> of all supported languages and not C.   
   >   
   >    You give it a file in whatever lang, it produces   
   >    a file in 'C' and compiles that. So, I'll basically   
   >    stick with my 'translator' def. And if 'C' does not   
   >    'natively support' something you can FAKE it with code,   
   >    not really anything you CAN'T do with 'C'.   
   >   
   >    By 'compiler' I mean "source in -> (agitating sounds) ->   
   >    binary executable out.   
   >   
   >    I think there are still a few FORTRAN compilers out   
   >    there for Linux, maybe COBOL too. There's at least   
   >    one forth IDE/compiler. Digital Mars makes 'C' and   
   >    'D' compilers. GCC is not the alpha and omega   
   >    of software development.   
   >   
   >>>    But it CAN be much more friendly and/or   
   >>>    tuned to a particular area of interest   
   >>>    or preferred programming style.   
   >   
      
   Iron Spring PL/I compiles directly to binary. It can produce assembler   
   output, but only as a by-product of generating the object file. I have   
   occasionally thought of trying to make it another front-end for GCC. As   
   I understand it, GCC compiles to an intermediate language, not to C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)