Xref: utzoo comp.arch:6429 comp.lang.c:13001 comp.lang.misc:1937
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cbmvax!snark!eric
From: eric@snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Machine-independent intermediate languages
Summary: Reality-check time
Message-ID: <e1nJ2#3cUTbR=eric@snark.UUCP>
Date: 28 Sep 88 20:20:16 GMT
Organization: Willam Claude Dukenfield Discordian Cabal
Lines: 27

The comp.arch discussion thread "Re: Software distribution" seems to me to
have drifted off into a lot of pointless theologizing. Let's try for a reality
check.

Let's start by asking the question:

	1) What properties distinguish a MLL from a HLL?

That is: how do I look at the semantics, performance, and portability of
a set of languages and sort the MIILs from the HLLs? Next:

	2) Are the portability goals for which MIILs are designed achievable
	   at all, given the diversity of today's architectures?

and, finally 

	3) If the answer to 2 is 'yes', *can those goals be achieved with
	   lower complexity and cost than an HLL compiler?*

If the answer to 3 is 'no', as I suspect, then I submit that we already have
as good an MIIL as we're ever going to get.

It's called 'C'.
-- 
      Eric S. Raymond                     (the mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
      UUCP: ...!{uunet,att,rutgers}!snark!eric = eric@snark.UUCP
      Post: 22 S. Warren Avenue, Malvern, PA 19355      Phone: (215)-296-5718