jfh@killer.UUCP (Working on a tan) (03/06/88)
In article <1670012@otter.hple.hp.com> kers@otter.hple.hp.com (Christopher Dollin) writes: >Hey, Reed ... > >I think the original poster was jesting. > >Oddly enough, Pop11 operates Polish style, but you'd not think it to look at >most of the code, as expressions > > E1 + E2 > >are translated to > > E1.codefor, E2.codefor, CALL + > >"Well, so what?" you may say. "So it uses RPN as an implementation technique. >But if the user can't see, who cares?". Well, the user can see it if da wants >to, and explot it even. [ And yes, I've diverted this to comp.lang.misc, and subscribed ... ] >Regards, >Kers. I _used_ to write Marine Engineering programs on polish machines, which I would not recommend to anyone. I prefer not remembering what I have on the stack. However, in all fairness, I love to use polish machines, both real and virtual, to generate code for. I recently wrote a relational database report writer using a reverse polish pseudo-machine as the execution engine. Compared to writing compilers for normal machines, such as M68000's or Vaxen, the code generation is far easier since all addressing modes are implied stack or some simple form of addressing (gross over simplification here), rather than having to deal with dozens of modes on a CISC machine. Am I alone inthis feeling - comments anyone? - John. -- John F. Haugh II SNAIL: HECI Exploration Co. Inc. UUCP: ...!ihnp4!killer!jfh 11910 Greenville Ave, Suite 600 "You can't threaten us, we're Dallas, TX. 75243 the Oil Company!" (214) 231-0993 Ext 260