On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Jacques Carette <care...@mcmaster.ca>wrote:
> On 20/11/2012 6:08 PM, Richard O'Keefe wrote: > >> On 21/11/2012, at 4:49 AM, <c...@lavabit.com> wrote: >> >> Well, I don't know. Would it save some time? Why bother with a core >>> language? >>> >> For a high level language (and for this purpose, even Fortran 66 counts as >> "high level") you really don't _want_ a direct translation from source >> code >> to object code. You want to eliminate unused code and you want to do all >> sorts of analyses and improvements. It is *much* easier to do all that to >> a small core language than to the full source language. >> > > Actually, here I disagree. It might be much 'easier' for the programmers > to do it for a small core language, but it may turn out to be much, much > less effective. I 'discovered' this when (co-)writing a partial evaluator > for Maple: You're still using a core language, though; just with a slightly different focus than Haskell's. I already mentioned gcc's internal language, which similarly is larger (semantically; syntactically it's sexprs). What combination is more appropriate depends on the language and the compiler implementation. -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allber...@gmail.com ballb...@sinenomine.net unix/linux, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure http://sinenomine.net
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe