Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!caip!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!ccird1!rb
From: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: net.arch,net.lang
Subject: Re: C as an aid writing assembler
Message-ID: <473@ccird1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Jun-86 15:50:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccird1.473
Posted: Thu Jun 12 15:50:55 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Jun-86 07:18:04 EDT
References: <201@pyuxv.UUCP> <3700003@uiucdcsp> <132@vaxb.calgary.UUCP> <1193@terak.UUCP> <438@ccird1.UUCP> <316@euroies.UUCP>
Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Organization: CCI Rochester Development, Rochester NY
Lines: 43
Xref: watmath net.arch:3429 net.lang:2481
Summary: Two views, both valid.

In article <316@euroies.UUCP> shepherd@euroies.UUCP (Roger Shepherd INMOS) writes:
>In article <438@ccird1.UUCP> Rex Ballard writes:
>> All High level languages do is attempt to organize the
>> macros and subroutines that might otherwise be written in
>> assembler.  They also provide some convenient and well
>> standardized procedures and parameter passing conventions.
>
>I disagree with view. A high level language should be more than a glorified
>macro assembler. It is possible to design a high level language so that
>it actually has a clean, coherent and useful semantics. It can then be used
>as a way of describing algorithms mathematically. Such langauges can even 
>be compiled!

In a sense, I agree with you.  What you're describing is the human->compiler
side of what a language should be.  I am describing what the compiler->machine
side should be.

How good the interface between the two view is, is a good definition of
the quality of a compiler.   If restricitions are loose enough reguarding
the nature of the variables, definitions, and operators, one could express
algorythms in "structured english" (as opposed to the hodge-podge we normally
atribute to the language), and have it compiled into a sequence of subroutines,
macro expansions, and instructions which could be executed by a computer.
On the other hand, "structured english" is a little tedious to type.  Perhaps
a "Decompiler" could translate 'C' code tokens into structured english :-).

Not only could it be compiled into instructions, it could also be compiled
into useful data bases, flow charts, structure charts, and even "design
completers" which could find common primitives in complex systems, and
express them in the same structured language.  These 'design completers'
are more commonly referred to as optimization, but often the input, as
well as the assembler could be optimized by machine, leaving only the
most commonly executed parts of the code to be "super-optimized" by hand,
or even hardware.

>Of course, very few existing HLLs have such a semantics. However, I have been
>useing one that does and one which compiles effeciently onto a processor. 

Which language is this?

>Roger Shepherd, INMOS Ltd, WHITEFRIARS, LEWINS MEAD, BRISTOL, UK

Nice company, looking forward to seeing more info on your products.