🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <15901@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.uucp (Chuck McManis) writes:
>In article <1090@ames.UUCP>, fouts@orville (Marty Fouts) writes:
>> To the audience to which I addressed my note -- the Atari ST user
>> community -- the word "compiler" implies producing a runable image
>> from a source program, which is the meaning I took from the first
>> request and was responding to.
>
>This is a meta-note on the above comment by Marty. I disagree that the
>"Atari ST user community" is unable to distinguish between a compiler
>and a linker. To me personally this seems somewhat of an insult to the 
>intelligence of the entire net, but I may be just over sensitive.
>
Bravo Chuck.  No your not overly sensitive.  I agree 100%.  Marty came
off as a being totally ignorant of the actual 'compiling' process.  Yet
he claims to start porting GCC.  So he must be reasonably intelligent,
right?  So why all the fuss?   As to his reference "the Atari ST user
community", even *I*, who has NEVER written a compiler nor am likely to,
know that the compiler does NOT assemble and link my object module.
A compiler 'driver' or 'shell' may, but the compiler should not.
Indeed I will NEVER AGAIN purchase a compiler that will not produce an
assembly language output file.   I disagree with Marty almost as
strongly as he took exception to Paul.

Marty, I might suggest it is you who need to clarify your language. What
you believe the word 'compiler' means may do on CompuSewer, or a local
BeeBeeEss, but not here.  Gives us a little more credit than that.
>--Chuck McManis
>uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: cmcmanis  ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
>These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.

-- 
Jeff Gortatowsky       {seismo,allegra}!rochester!kodak!elmgate!jdg
Eastman Kodak Company  
These comments are mine alone and not Eastman Kodak's. How's that for a
simple and complete disclaimer?