Talk:Compiler: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Jitse Niesen
(remove maths workgroup and catcheck flag from checklist)
imported>Subpagination Bot
m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details))
Line 1: Line 1:
{{checklist
{{subpages}}
|                abc = Compiler
|                cat1 = Computers
|                cat2 =
|                cat3 =
|          cat_check = n
|              status = 2
|        underlinked = y
|            cleanup = y
|                  by = [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 00:13, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
}}


__TOC__
__TOC__

Revision as of 05:48, 26 September 2007

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition A program that translates a human-readable instructions into machine instructions. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Computers [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive 1, 2, 3, 4  English language variant British English

note on article split

I have split this article away from translation system.Pat Palmer 03:22, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

shall we merge in Optimization for now?

Optimization_(computer_science) seems like it really ought to be merged back into compiler, at least for now, since it is just a stub. We could always split them again if both get too large. As it stands, though, we run the risk of getting duplication information in two articles if they are kept separate.Pat Palmer 03:45, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

we need a section (or an article?) on history of compilers

The first compiler was such a breakthough. Assemblers and compilers used to be difficult. Nowadays, they are much better understood (but the formalisms behind them were not always so well understood). There's a story there.Pat Palmer 04:21, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

we need references

Does anyone have the Aho/Ullman book around (or whatever people are reading these days instead)? If so, the article would benefit it we could cite it (and some others) as references for specific parts of this article.Pat Palmer 04:21, 9 May 2007 (CDT)