Talk:List of compilers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Binaryen?[edit]

although it doesn't convert C to machine code, it does convert C to Webassembly. should it be added as a C compiler? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:700:715A:6111:5210:269F:4267 (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Converting to chart[edit]

I am going to "be bold" and convert this list into a comparison chart, in order to better organize the various details and make it more encyclopedic. VanishingUser 09:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the basic layout is done. I created a chart for C/C++ compilers and I feel that charts should be categorized by language (because people looking for compilers are generally looking for one language). I think the chart should also only contain robust, general-purpose compilers and not ones that are developmental or special-purpose/research oriented. Those should remain in their own section unless somebody wants to make a separate chart for them. Feel free to spiff it up or add more (important) details to the chart. I incorporated the list of commercial compilers (sans the links that sounded like spam) and applicable open source compilers. VanishingUser 10:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

architectures instead of platform?[edit]

Since compilers generate machine code for specific architectures, perhaps a set of target architectures should be in this table. Of course this could get extremely long (i.e. does compiler X target variant Y of processor family Z?..if so which version of compiler X?). Majikaltrev 03:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what you want to say is "Add architectures column?"
Indeed, while it is important to understand on which platforms (workstation/OS combinations) compilers and compiler frameworks execute, it's equally important to understand which (ranges of) target architectures the compiler generates code for. StephanP 10:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion (use categories):

  • add a Column "Cross compiler" and link to the category "Cross compiler"
  • Use the categories "Cross Compiler" and add sub categories for the target architectures - e.g. "Target Architecture MCS-51" for SDCC -> ([[8051_compiler] may be a member of this category, too)

Reason: This makes it easier to find a compiler for the used architecture. A Table cannot provide this information, secondly it has to be maintained. The Category solution is more "single Source".
Comments? (can this page/table be created automatically using Categories?)

C++ compilers[edit]

I think there should be a column for C++ support, since there are more C compilers than C++ compilers, and C++ is more difficult to implement. Sanxiyn 09:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, since "C/C++" is misleading, they are two different languages. It might even be worth considering splitting into two tables, but because most of the products ship with both a C compiler and a C++ compiler, a column for (C: Yes/No) and (C++: Yes/No) would be better 124.170.119.56 (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? There is already a table for "C Compilers". Why is the table for C++ not simply called "C++ Compilers" instead of "C/C++ compilers"?? It does only seem to contain C++ compilers... I will rename that table's caption. If anyone knows for sure that table contains also C-only compilers, please revert my edit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.247.213.182 (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone add the TDM-GCC compiler fork to the list of C/C++ compilers? thank you. Also I am totally agree with the idea to have only one table for C/C++ compilers. (Artsanx (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Netbeans and Solaris Studio are not C++ compilers[edit]

Netbeans is an IDE, not a compiler, and why does the table say it doesn't run on unix-like systems?

Similarly, Solaris Studio and Solaris Studio Express are not compilers, they are IDEs. JonathanWakely (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

compiler generators?[edit]

Is written "This page is dedicated to list all current compilers, compiler generators..."; but compiler generators is in List_of_parser_generators could be link --Borneq 07:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many more compilers could be added[edit]

For example, see Pascal Programming Language#Compilers and interpreters --Tim32 08:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should make this a page of notable compilers? Because pretty much every CS student who takes a compiler class writes a compiler. I've written two compilers in the last several months myself — but I don't think they should be listed on Wikipedia! Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DevC++ is not a compiler[edit]

It is an IDE for the MinGW compiler

This applies to Code::Blocks as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.55.23 (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC) it is same as c++. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.234.22.32 (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mingw is for windows only[edit]

best to remove it and merge it with GCC, since it's basically the same thing

"GCC (mingw on windows)" or something like that could be an appropriate name

also, neither of them feature an IDE, although there are many IDEs that support these compilers.

No it isn't, there's also a mingw32 package for Linux (a win32 compiler) --80.174.59.86 (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MathScriptor[edit]

I do not know the correct section in which to list the orphaned article MathScriptor. (Also, it is uncategorized.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJGPP is DOS only[edit]

DJGPP is a DOS port of gcc, and should follow the same conventions of mingw (i.e. merge it into gcc) or only have Other marked as yes, and Windows and Unix like marked as no. Also, I have not been able to find that DJGPP comes with an IDE, but instead, like GCC, is supported by multiple IDEs.

I'm going to change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrederikHertzum (talk • contribs) 01:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old compiler - code generator called Prototyper?[edit]

I seem to recall a code development applcation called Protoyper (I think for the Mac). Similar to Visual Studio, you drew the user interface with drag and drop tools, and it would generate the code with special comments seperating the sections where you would then add your own code. Anyone remember this and it's exact name? Jeffareid (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The “IDE” column[edit]

I think that the “IDE” column is irrelevant. An IDE is usually not tied to a specific compiler, neither is a compiler tied to a specific IDE. For example, Code::Blocks can be used with either MinGW or Visual C++, whereas MinGW can be used with both Dev-C++ and QtCreator. Spidermario (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. It seems like something planted by a shill to make it appear like an important feature. IDEs are an orthogonal subject and don't warrant a column at all. I motion to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is MinGW a compiler?[edit]

MinGW comes with a packaged GCC compiler. If MinGW is listed as a compiler here, one could just as well list other distributions. But nobody would seriously consider listing e.g. Linux distros like Debian, Red Hat or SuSE as compilers here. I strongly suggest MinGW should just be removed. 91.105.129.177 (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After checking the history and finding out that MinGW is just a leftover from a mistakenly introduced IDE (Dev-C++), I've just gone ahead and removed it. 91.105.129.177 (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse as an IDE[edit]

Why is Eclipse listed as an IDE for the GCC, when there also many other IDE available. Either all should be list or none. The second way should be more desirable --one-eyed pirate 19:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IDE columns should be removed entirely in my opinion. There's another page that can be used to list IDEs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideone is not a compiler[edit]

Ideone is just a pastebin service that compiles the given c++ code with gcc. See sites like codepad.org that do the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.159.220.234 (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unix-like?[edit]

What exactly is this column supposed to mean? I take it as "this compiler runs on a *nix OS - AT&T Unix(tm), Solaris, Linux, AIX, etc." Is this right or is something else intended?

Also, I have updated the "other OS' column for PL/I compilers to identify the specific OSs, as I believe others have done in some cases. Peter Flass (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to decide whether Mac OS X is a "Unix-like" or an "Other OS" and edit the tables accordingly! I'm looking particularly at the C compiler list. Personally, I'd put it under "Unix-like", but I suppose there could be some argument by people who are more rabid fanboys than me. Baratron (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is CodeWarrior/C++ really freeware?[edit]

Under C++, CodeWarrior (Metrowerks) is listed as freeware. Is that really true? It used to be commercial - was a discontinued product released as freeware? --Mortense (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


DIBOL/DBL compilers **Suggested Section[edit]

I would like to add this section to the list of compilers. Please let me know if you see any reason this edit will not be successful and remain on the List of compilers Wikipedia Page.

Thank you! RichardMorris RCP (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Compiler Author Windows Unix-like Other OSs License type IDE?
Synergy DBL Synergex Yes Yes Yes Proprietary Yes

Forth ?[edit]

Any specific reason(s) why Forth is not on this list? I know a lot of Forth interpreters that are still being developed and can generate executables with their turnkey program generator functionality. A lot of current Forth systems today are also multi-platform (Win32/Linux/MacOS X).

I'd happily add all that I know to this list (from the top of my head: VFX Forth by MPE, SwiftForth by Forth Inc., iForth by Marcel Hendrix, GNU Forth, Win32Forth.....), but I want to be sure it was not excluded for a reason beforehand.

Also, on an unrelated note RealBasic recently renamed itself to xojo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvanderleun (talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also expect to see Forth on this list. Perhaps someone thought this article should only cover compilers, not interpreters. However -- since both (a) the article has now expanded to also cover interpreters, and (b) many Forth systems compile to machine language, although others are arguably only interpreters -- I see no reason to leave out Forth. --DavidCary (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I started the section List of compilers#Forth compilers and interpreters. (And I see someone else has previously updated the page to mention "Xojo (formerly REALbasic)".) --DavidCary (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perl Compilers[edit]

The ActiveState ActivePerl distribution, dev kit, and I believe some versions of the MKS Toolkit have Perl compilers, called Perlc in the former case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.64.60.226 (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rexx Compilers[edit]

There are at least two of which I am aware, and they have been around for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.64.60.226 (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Python Compiler[edit]

CPython compiler comes with the standard distributions; standard Windows file extension for compiled object/executable files is pyc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.64.60.226 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CC[edit]

What about cc? The original/legacy C compiler? Should be at least some reference to this in this wiki entry. 195.212.29.89 (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC) I presume this was written by one or more of Brian Kernighan, Ken Thompson and/or Dennis Ritchie, the original designers of the C language. 80.4.63.73 (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Version compatibility column[edit]

Maybe for each of the languages with multiple popular versions (eg Python 2.7 and 3.4, C90 and C99), we should add a column with which version the compiler is compatible up to. For example, TCC is not fully compatible with C99, but totally compatible with C90. Epic Wink (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C# compilers duplication[edit]

Visual C#, both paid and express, do not actualy contain the C# compiler (csc), the Framework does. It's also the same compiler that is now being open sourced (Roslyn).

Should these really all be listed on here as seperate?--Damon Ganto (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOGO compilers[edit]

Liogo

Lhogho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.246.62.192 (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Batch compiler ?[edit]

Batch compilers do not exists yet. These "batch compilers" are more like a packer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSnake41 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on List of compilers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power C[edit]

The addition is incomplete, missing obvious reference pages for the author Mix Software, or Compiler Power C. These pages can be added quickly later by reference to http://www.mixsoftware.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by HinckleyBob (talk • contribs) 02:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of compilers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More Pascal compilers[edit]

See http://pascaland.org/pascall.htm#SRC for more Pascal compilers. I'm not sure whether we should put them all in the article though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReneHSZ (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to Arm webpages[edit]

WARNING:
When linking to an Arm documentation on infocenter.arm.com, your browser's address bar does not reflect the page you're seeing! You can Right Click in the left pane on the link you want, and copy the link address.
The developer info for the Arm Compiler 5 and later is the same on the Keil (http://www.keil.com/support/man_arm.htm) and Arm (http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.set.swdev/index.html) websites. The Keil site is easier to link to the latest documentation. The Arm site is easier to find documentation (older, newer & other) and has a PDF version you can download. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.75.104.60 (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C++ compliance should contain a column for library implementation[edit]

Most notably, Clang on macOS lacks several library features introduced after c++11 (std::filesystem for example). While the *compiler* is c++17 compliant, the c++ library on the system is not. This caught us by surprise since we assumed we had the full c++17 feature set available.

Why include interpreters?[edit]

Is there a good reason interpreters are being included in a list of compilers? The distinction isn't always clear, but still, pure interpreters really do not belong in a list of compilers. Wootery (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively the name of the article could be changed to List of programming language implementations, with redirect from list of compilers. --Nngnna (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename.
I agree that it makes no sense to list interpreters under "list of compilers".
I agree the distinction is not as clear as it once was:
  • just-in-time compilers blur the line between interpreters and compilers
  • a few BASIC and Forth systems can be *either* an interpreter *or* a compiler at different times.
  • many languages have a standard implementation that *both* compiles to bytecode *and* an interpreter for that bytecode (Java, Python, Z-machine, etc.)
Since the distinction isn't clear, I support your second proposal to rename this article so it clearly *does* support listing both interpreters and compilers. --DavidCary (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For these reasons, I'm also strongly in favor of the rename. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please divide the article by programming language[edit]

This article is a mess and difficult to read. I suggest do create a "list of compiler" article for each programming language. --IT-Compiler (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forth: add column for standard compliance[edit]

Some of the forths listed are ans complient, while others are not. I would recommend adding a column denoting what standard (if any) each forth complies to. Binarycat64 (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fortran H[edit]

The IBM Fortran H compiler is freely available. The later H extended compiler is licensed, and has many more features. Gah4 (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Far too ambitious[edit]

This article is far too ambitious to encompass all languages and all compilers. It is bound to fail for being incomplete, and invites compiler writers to add their own compilers, however small the installed base is. The best I can think of is a list of one site per language that is recognized by the language users for being a maintained current overview. 2A02:A46A:7AD0:1:19BB:EB6B:59B5:7135 (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note which are vendor versions of LLVM?[edit]

A lot of companies are wondering why bother doing a proprietary compiler when they can just repackage LLVM. e.g. AMD C++ is just clang now. Intel's icc has been deprecated in favour of icx, which is just LLVM.

Should we list such compilers separately, remove then as just being LLVM, note that they're vendor versions of LLVM? Have a separate list of deprecated/dead proprietary compilers? Something else? - David Gerard (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_compilers&oldid=1203632812"