Machine-independent intermediate languages

[News reading a/c for itcp]

>From article <e2uEl#2ORJzO=eric at snark.UUCP>, by eric at snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond):
> 	2) Are the portability goals for which MIILs are designed achievable
> 	   at all, given the diversity of today's architectures?
> 
> 	3) If the answer to 2 is 'yes', *can those goals be achieved with
> 	   lower complexity and cost than an HLL compiler?*
> 
> The whole debate so far has been about 2). I am trying to suggest that the
> critical question is actually 3), that the answer to 3) appears to be 'no',
> and that the notion of MIIL is therefore fundamentally rather pointless,
> because it distracts us from the *important* questions about designing
> portability into HLLs.

There are two independent goals for a MIIL, the original one that started this
discussion, namely a `single universal distribution medium' that didn't entail
giving away source. As this was being discussed in what is essentially a UNIX
environment the assumption was that to all intents and purposes the MIIL only
had to serve for C programs. Here compiler costs are not really a
consideration - but I feel it remains to be shown that obfuscated C source
could not serve this purpose.

I have another interest in MIIL and that is as a Language independent
intermediate code to promote the design and disemination of new programming
languages. Clearly it would be acceptable for the MILL implementation
cost to exceed the cost of a single HLL compiler, so long as it was cheaper
than two HLL compilers. If it were more expensive than that I would seriously
doubt its reliability and maintainability.

[Usual disclaimer: this represents only my hastily assembled opinion and
		   spelling, and not necessarily anyonelse's]

	Tom (itcp at uk.co.ist)