Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!ukc!inmos!mph@lion.inmos.co.uk From: mph@lion.inmos.co.uk (Mike Harrison) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Cheap implementations of languages (Re: Pointers and poor implementations (was: Re: JLG's flogging ...)) Message-ID: <5486@ganymede.inmos.co.uk> Date: 10 Apr 90 12:53:12 GMT References: <14317@lambda.UUCP> Sender: news@inmos.co.uk Reply-To: mph@inmos.co.uk (Mike Harrison) Organization: INMOS Limited, Bristol, UK. Lines: 28 In article <14317@lambda.UUCP> jlg@lambda.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes: >... The fact is that C is not simpler to implement >than the other procedural languages in general use. In some ways it >is harder to implement. Since you pick Fortran as the point of comparison, >I will look at both. >[Lots of detail deleted] While I think that your comparison is fair, you have missed out some tricky bits of Fortran, which *might* change the perspective. For example: - DATA statements, with implied DO, which can be quite complex when you have nested cases. - EQUIVALENCE statements, which (given overlapping EQUIVALENCEd arrays) can set up quite complex constraint problems. As you say, these are all well understood etc..., but they DO make Fortran a bit more complex than you implied. Mike, Michael P. Harrison - Software Group - Inmos Ltd. UK. ----------------------------------------------------------- UK : mph@inmos.co.uk with STANDARD_DISCLAIMERS; US : mph@inmos.com use STANDARD_DISCLAIMERS;