4 ms·
No one said "everything is a compiler"; jerf and I listed particular applications, by name. That's hardly "everything". And no one if offering you hangman as a
by mahmud 16y ago
No one said "everything is a compiler"; jerf and I listed particular applications, by name. That's hardly "everything".
And no one if offering you hangman as an example either.
I think you're exactly the type of people I was referring to as those who mystify compilation, in your case for the sake of unspecified native code generation ideal.
If you're solving a data processing and translation problem, and find your solution fitting a parse, validate, translate model. Using well known compilation techniques. I would say you're writing a compiler. Regardless of whether the output is native code, assembly, C, XML, byte-code, display transformations, or in-memory side-effects.
- kenjackson 16y agoI just think that compilers generate programs or program fragments. Nothing mistifying about it. I really do think my definition is the mainstream. I just draw a distinction between using techniques common in compilers vs actual compilers. I agree those things that Jerf listed may use techniques common in compilers, call them compilation techniques, but I still don't think they're compilers. I dont' think that makes them bad programs, but they're not compilers. And frankly, I think even those who the community deems as expert would say the same thing. They may use some compilation technologies, but they're not compilers.
- infinite8s 16y agoYou guys are arguing past the article. His entire point is that "compilation techniques" are important to a whole class of programming problems, and the best way to learn them is the standard university compiler class.