Re: Compiler vs. Translator

hannah@schlund.de (Hannah Schroeter)
6 Jun 2004 15:10:45 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Compiler vs. Translator postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us (Paul Robinson) (2004-05-16)
Re: Compiler vs. Translator dido@imperium.ph (2004-05-24)
Re: Compiler vs. Translator gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2004-05-24)
Re: Compiler vs. Translator richard@imagecraft.com (Richard F. Man) (2004-05-24)
Re: Compiler vs. Translator Martin.Ward@durham.ac.uk (Martin Ward) (2004-05-30)
Re: Compiler vs. Translator gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2004-05-30)
Re: Compiler vs. Translator hannah@schlund.de (2004-06-06)
Re: Compiler vs. Translator jburgy@hotmail.com (2004-06-15)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: hannah@schlund.de (Hannah Schroeter)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 6 Jun 2004 15:10:45 -0400
Organization: Schlund + Partner AG
References: 04-05-051 04-05-058 04-05-082
Keywords: translator, comment
Posted-Date: 06 Jun 2004 15:10:45 EDT

Hello!


glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>[...]


>It doesn't seem that any such preprocessors (not counting
>the C preprocessor) have been very popular, though.


What about cfront, before good "direct" C++ compilers came up?


>[...]


Kind regards,


Hannah.
[Cfront was a compiler, not a translator. Its output was intended to be fed to
a C compiler, but not to be readable or maintainable by people. -John]

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.