"compile" vs. "tokenize" (was Re: Password Problem)

[Fairlight]

With neither thought nor caution, Bill Vermillion blurted:
> 
> Then there is the classic 'yacc' Yet Another Compiler Compiler -
> even though it really is a parser generator and that generates some
> of the most obnoxious looking C code you'll ever want to look at.

You've obviously never looked at perlcc's output.  :)  I think there must
have been a line of C (or more) for every single opcode.  A 322 line
program translated to several megs of C before I sucked all available
memory and swap and the system got fouled so badly it needed a reboot.
Took 45min, it still wasn't done with the compile either.  This was on an
UltraSparc.  That's when I gave up on perlcc as a realistic tool.  I know
the docs said it was still experimental, but geez.  :)

> I don't see that the target has to exist in hardware.  There are
> plenty of emulators extant and some often used commercial ones -
> such as the one that permits MS programs compiled for the Intel
> platform to run on the Apple PowerPC program.   

And I used to use an emulator to run Mac software on linux under X.  But
what's your point?  Keyword: emulator.  Obviously the target -does- exist
in hardware in some location, prior to that kind of software being created.
That someone later built an emulator in software is one thing.  What Ken
talked about was someone having built a machine to -be- a code-specific
emulator.

I just think it's bending the spirit of it a bit, if not the letter.  Not
that it truly matters one way or another.  And if they still don't have a
standard definition after all this time, I doubt we're going to argue it
out to the point that we define it in this discussion.  :)

mark->
-- 
Bring the web-enabling power of OneGate to -your- filePro applications today!

Try the live filePro-based, OneGate-enabled demo at the following URL:
               http://www2.onnik.com/~fairlite/flfssindex.html