undefined | Better HN

0 pointscopsarebastards11y ago0 comments

> And, you do realize that one of the simplest languages for compiler writers, lisp, doesn't have to move heaven/earth to make that calculation work out how you want it.

I've written a C compiler and am currently writing a Lisp compiler, and I'm not sure where you get the idea that Lisp is a simple language for compiler writers. Lisp's simple representation belies a very complicated runtime, to the point that the majority of Lisp implementations don't support compilation at all--they're interpreted only.

0 comments

taeric11y ago

This seems to get back to the other debate that crops up with "simplest." Just because I posit that it is one of the simplest languages, does not mean I imply it is by definition simple.

copsarebastardsOP11y ago

I'm pretty comfortable with asserting that there's no reasonable definition of "simple" which would make a mature Lisp compiler simpler than a mature C compiler.

taeric11y ago

Fair, though I am focusing on the less mature situations. Specifically, a naive lisp evaluator is much easier than a C compiler.

Are there any mature compilers, for any language, that would qualify as simple?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

taeric11y ago

This seems to get back to the other debate that crops up with "simplest." Just because I posit that it is one of the simplest languages, does not mean I imply it is by definition simple.

copsarebastardsOP11y ago

I'm pretty comfortable with asserting that there's no reasonable definition of "simple" which would make a mature Lisp compiler simpler than a mature C compiler.

taeric11y ago

Fair, though I am focusing on the less mature situations. Specifically, a naive lisp evaluator is much easier than a C compiler.

Are there any mature compilers, for any language, that would qualify as simple?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse