Other Compilers: Proposal to rename & slightly repurpose

[eekee]

I propose renaming Other Compilers to "List of Compilers" and including a very brief summary of every compiler. Other lists could be added on the page so we keep the present content as Summaries and add terser lists for language, target architecture, host architecture, and perhaps license. My goal is to make a quick-reference to save time and effort when choosing a compiler.

This would ease maintenance a little because we wouldn't be trying to exclude things in the compilers category. I see it presently includes some compilers which have their own page and are or should be in the category. Another compiler (LCC) which is in the category but not this page has a one-line page more suitable for this list.

Regarding "very brief", my own 6-sentence summary of "kencc" is perhaps a longer than desirable. I'll make a page for it at some point.

[crosssans]

I think it's a really good idea to do, I'd love to see the changes. What could also be interesting to do is to make a separate wiki page about "homemade" assemblers, compilers, build systems, etc. so that one or more kernel/OS developers could access to this page & choose what's best for them!

[eekee]

Cool! I'll get started when the B vitamins get back into my system, then.

I'm not sure about a separate page for "homemade" things, where do you draw the line? TCC is a fairly good compiler, but it might also qualify as homemade. I would like some pages on writing compilers, preferably keeping parser nonsense separate from code generation, and I guess optimization should be a separate page too. So maybe 3 or 4 pages, depending on whether lexer needs to be separate to parser.

[bzt]

I agree, this is a good idea! And I also think there should be no separate page, rather a "popularity" or "number of users" icon maybe? I'm thinking something like the ones we have on the tutorials page for difficulty. This could be hard to tell precisely, so it's no problem that the icons are just vague. Just an idea, I'm fine with a simple ordering (more mature compilers first).

Since we have many members working on compilers, we should have a page for those too I think. Something like the Projects page, where each member can list their own compilers. When those compilers got mature enough, then we could move them from the incubator page to the List of compilers page. Opinions?

Cheers,
bzt

[nexos]

That sounds like a great idea, bzt. I think having a list of hobby compilers would be great.

[eekee]

Vague popularity icons sounds good to me.

As for a list, can someone who wants it please explain how we can fairly distinguish hobby compilers from others? Does Tcc count, or is the guy who wrote Qemu too big and clever? Tell me how you'd exclude Gcc, on which, I'm almost 100% certain, some people are working on as part of their hobby right now. (If they're not taking a break after watching the launch to Mars.) Or KenCC? Ken Thompson was paid, but seems to have had a whole lot of freedom for large sections of his working life - a "paid hobby" perhaps? Should we exclude something he probably wanted to work on just because he was paid? KenCC shows a whole lot of personal advancement too, hardly seeming like it could come from the guy who bikeshedded BCPL in 1970 to make it look simpler, and who claimed he couldn't cope with anything complex. (He gives me hope! )

[nexos]

That is a good point eekee, but I can think of a few hobby compilers off the top of my head. Smaller C by alexfru is a hobby, I would count TCC since I'm sure QEMU had a similar story as Linux, and Fabrice probably didn't intend for QEMU to get so huge. mrustc by thepowersgang is a hobby, Hexa by PeyTy is a hobby, and I am sure there are others I am forgetting. So there are plenty of hobby compilers.

[PeterX]

How about "Small compilers" and "Big compilers"?

Greetings
Peter

[nexos]

Sounds great! I am probably going to do that soon.