Talk:Compiler

duplication

the "types of compilers" section is a duplication of text at the very top of the page.

highlighting them in the source code

There is a dubious/discuss for highlighting them in the source code. At first I also thought it was dubious, the way it sounds, but compilers from the 1960's and 1970's would normally (optionally) print out a source listing, with error messages at the appropriate point. Then usually with an indication of where in the line the error was, as well as it was known, sometimes with an arrow pointing at the position. I would consider that highlighting. Some GUI compilers might actually highlight with color or font, or otherwise make obvious in the source. Some now just indicate the line number, and usually where in the line, which is a less obvious definition of highlight. Gah4 (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I can see both sides of this. I'm sure it's true that some compilers out there do some kind of highlighting of the source code. However, I would expect an encyclopedia article describing the different stages of the compiler to describe what they fundamentally and generally do, rather than what all the possibilities are. The next sentence, which notes that the front-end performs lexical, syntactic, and semantic analysis is much more true to the spirit of what this component does, and that's the thing to focus on. Unless there's further discussion of this in the near future I'll edit this out. Rm9820 (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

translators

There are computer language translators that are not compilers. Specifically, that don't fully parse the source language. When given invalid input, they tend to produce invalid output, possibly unrecognizable, without any error messages. This used to be commonly done with macro processors, that would read a file of macros and apply them to the input. One language that does still work this was is TeX. Gah4 (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

A macro processor is clearly a type of compiler; the input is written in macro language, the output is a different language. GliderMaven (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I suppose so, but I tend to make a distinction between ones that actually parse the input, vs. simple, or slightly less than simple, string substitution. But yes, there are macro processors that do complex parsing. Otherwise, you could call sed a compiler, which most people don't. Otherwise, there are macro-processors that can fully parse the input. Gah4 (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Sed, in and of itself, doesn't specifically perform a translation, although some sed commands might be considered to be extremely simple compilers. GliderMaven (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Primary Sources??

I see this article tagged as "depending too much on primary sources". What on earth would be "primary sources" for such a broad term as "compiler"? I'd guess the person who tagged the article didn't have an understanding what "primary source" means. As I don't really see an explanation why the article was tagged, I'd say the tag should be removed. Comments anyone? --Arny (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The only way to answer your question would be to look at the history of the topic and see if the problem that was noticed when the tag was placed was resolved, rather than making snide comments about other editors. TEDickey (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The tag was over two years ago. There were no additions to the talk page for months after, and especially not near, the time when the tag was added. Changes in the mean time may, or may not, have fixed the problems noted. Besides, I thought Wikipedia wanted secondary sources! Gah4 (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Octicons-terminal.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)