Python and Flaming Thunder

[Jean-Paul Calderone]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 06:53:02 -0400, "J. Clifford Dyer" <jcd at sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 10:33 -0700, Dave Parker wrote:
>> > You sound like a commercial.
>>
>> Get Flaming Thunder for only $19.95!  It slices, it dices!
>>
>> > And while programs and libraries written in assembly may be twice as fast
>> > as programs and libraries written in C, ...
>>
>> It's a myth that they're only twice as fast.  An experienced assembly
>> language programmer can usually get out at least a factor of 5 by
>> using tricks such as cache-coherence, carry flag tricks, stack
>> manipulations, etc.
>>
>> > ... they're real hell to maintain.
>>
>> That's also a myth.  For example, if C is easy to maintain, why is
>> Flaming Thunder the only single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross compiler in
>> the world?  There should be lots of single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross
>> compilers written in C, if C is easier to maintain.
>
>Not only is it the world's only "single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross
>compiler," but according to google, it's also the world's only "shotgun
>cross compiler" period.  But I guess if you make up your own terminology
>you're bound to be unique.  :)  Do you mind if I ask: what exactly is a
>single-asset 8x8 shotgun cross compiler, and what makes that of any
>value to me?

The web page explains.  It's a compiler that runs on 8 platforms and can
generate executables for any of them on any of them.  It's not _totally_
clear about what "single-asset" means, but it gives the impression (and
the term somewhat suggests) that this means there's a single executable
that does all of this (compare to gcc's design, where support for cross
compiling to another arch is provided by a separate executable).

"Shotgun" probably just sounds cool.

Jean-Paul