Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Old C Compiler Lives Again Under GPL

Posted by timothy on from the just-what-I-was-looking-for dept.

JordanH writes "The DeSmet-C compiler, a commercial C compiler from the '80s, is being released under the GPL. Yet another alternative C compiler implementation available for your coding pleasure."

46 comments

  1. Forgive me, but... by Total_Wimp · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I do think it's good to bring new life to old code by open-sourcing it, but this one seems a little problematic. Playing Doom or using an old OS for a special purpose can be fun and useful, but why would you want to chance your code on an old and questionably maintained compiler?

    If I'm missing something, let me know, but this just looks a bit more useless than the average open source project. I know it's educational, but is there anything real anyone would chance on it?

    1. Re:Forgive me, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Maybe gcc could borrow some code. Who knows maybe theres some hidden gold in there. Anything to improve its compiling....

    2. Re:Forgive me, but... by torpor · · Score: 1

      i see many reasons for why you might want to have a portable well-maintained compiler across many diverse platforms. if i've got the source to all my projects, but no compiler source, how am i going to get my code ported to exotic architectures for me, 2000 years from now?

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    3. Re:Forgive me, but... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Forgive me, but why are you on this website when you could be doing something useful? I mean, I do think it's good to bring the ideals of marketing to technology, but this message seems a little problematic. Applying "But could Grandma use it" ideals to Linux could be useful, but why would you want to bitch and moan about a project you have no interest in?

      If I'm missing something, let me know, but the parent message looks a bit more useless than the average criticism. I know you think you're passing on useful information, but why should anyone care what you have to say?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Forgive me, but... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      well if you are trying to maintain old code staying with the original compiler means that you won't run into bugs caused by new behaviour in a new compiler.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    5. Re:Forgive me, but... by Total_Wimp · · Score: 1

      There was a real question in my post. Would anyone chance a real compile using this compiler for code they actually care about?

      There's a difference between an open source project that's actually used by real people to do real work (or fun) and one that's just educational code. It's not bitching and moaning to point that out. It's also not bitching and moaning to sugest that open source would be better understood by all if this difference was made more clear.

  2. lots of compilers... by VolciMaster · · Score: 1, Interesting
    lots of choices, but is there really a good reason to GPL this, other than to see what the state of the art ight have been 15-20 years ago?

    Don't get me wrong, I love good compilers, but with all the changes in the standard, and current, good, optimizing compilers, why would we want this?

    --
    antipaucity
    1. Re:lots of compilers... by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 1

      is there really a good reason to GPL this

      As much of a reason (some would say more) as releasing personal ramblings that no one reads (most blogs) under the GFDL.

      Eric
      The ANSI Standard: A Summary for C Programmers (old but oddly relevant)
    2. Re:lots of compilers... by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 1

      And in a similar vein, see the Open Watcom project for a different set of (not GPLed, but open sourced) compilers.

    3. Re:lots of compilers... by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 1

      If the GPL is all about choice, why are you whining about more choices? I really wish /. would get over the "It's not very exciting/I don't use it/there are better things, who cares if it's GPL/support GPL products" thing. (see Google/Yahoo Toolbar) Any GPL code is a good thing for the GPL.

    4. Re:lots of compilers... by metamatic · · Score: 1
      ...with all the changes in the standard, and current, good, optimizing compilers, why would we want this?

      For running on systems where you don't have MiB spare to run GCC 3.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    5. Re:lots of compilers... by orasio · · Score: 1

      I'm getting really fed up by that kind of comment.
      Mostly, about the mods who think they are "interesting".

      If you were arguing about the relevancy of this story being on /. , I would understand. Of course, nothing else seems to have happened tosay, so it's ok.

      If you were just trolling, I would understand, too. It's fun to troll.

      If you think that people shouldn't GPL stuff just for the sake of it, because it's an innecesary increase of entropy, then why do you make things worse by adding a completely useless comment to it?
      At least some people will look at the code, and maybe learn one thing or two about how to design, or how not to design, a compiler.
      That's more anyone could say about your comment.
      Just a useless waste of bytes. Stating that some other guys work is worthless, without even looking at it.

    6. Re:lots of compilers... by NewStarRising · · Score: 1

      A reason to GPL it? Sure. And my reason would be "Because they can".

      Is there a reason to keep this old, obsolete compiler, that may have some interesting sections (if only from a historic perspective), as a proprietry, closed system?

      Maybe it can be improved/updated and end up being a real rival for modern compilers.
      Kept locked, we would never know.
      GPLed we at least have the option.

      --
      b3 4phr41d 0f my 4bov3-4v3r4g3 c0mpu73r kn0wI3dg3!
      MadDwarf
    7. Re:lots of compilers... by VolciMaster · · Score: 1
      I think many of you missed my point, so let me clarify. GPL-ing something because we can is all well and good. However, I'm trying to determine a legitimate reason for this to be GPL'd. I understand GPL-ing new things, and even some recent items. However, for something old (and apparently out of date), public domain, BSD, MIT, or similar releases would have been far more interesting.

      The only use I can really see for this would be to compile old code. Considering the 386 was developed in the mid-80's, I assume this compiler can produce 32-bit code. Citing the release notice: "There are other, smaller options like TCC that is a complete C compiler, but it's too geared to 386+ and Linux to be a good playground. Other open-source C compilers tend to be variations of Small C that, while understandable, don't implement the entire language."

      What's wrong with newer compilers being geared for 386+? If this compiler supports 16-bit applications, that's all well and good, but outside of embedded development using 16-bit CPUs, we don't compile for 16-bit anymore. An for embedded development, each of the manufacturers has tuned compilers for their processor, and there's normally no reason to use a different one.

      I'm excited that Watcom, GCC, TCC, and others are all open-source. I'm disappointed that Watcom doesn't support the namespace stuff from C++, so I don't use it, but it is a really good C compiler. GCC is enormous, and has front-ends for almost every language imaginable. That's great. TCC is nice and small and for straight-up C programming, is a decent tool.

      I'm not trolling, flamebaiting, offtopicing, or redundanting. I'm trying to ask a non-emotional question and get a reasonable response (which happens as often as not here on Slashdot).

      --
      antipaucity
  3. Good work! by duncanbojangles · · Score: 1

    Pretty nifty story behind the open-sourcing. I wonder how many other applications have received this sort of treatment and how many more wait in anticipation for freedom.

    First post?

    1. Re:Good work! by Quarters · · Score: 1

      What story? He found the author(s), contacted them, and asked permission. Not really a page turner, that.

    2. Re:Good work! by XO · · Score: 1

      I wonder moreso, how many other applications the source code has been completely and utterly lost for. Hell, I don't have the source code for much of anything that I used to write, I relied on the Internet to be my backup. Well, that didn't turn out nearly as easily done when you're talking about a project with a hundred or so users at most, versus say, Linux. heh.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
  4. C'mon by lbmouse · · Score: 5, Funny

    How is something from the 80's considered OLD?! It's not even vintage yet. I have underwear from the 80's that are just fine.

    1. Re:C'mon by Gherald · · Score: 3, Funny

      > How is something from the 80's considered OLD?! It's not even vintage yet. I have underwear from the 80's that are just fine.

      Perhaps the computer world moves faster than your ass?

      Just a thought :)

      --
      The unofficial /. digest
    2. Re:C'mon by namekuseijin · · Score: 1

      i'd mod you funny if i had any mod points...

      10 years in IT is a lot...

      somehow, i don't think you use those underwears from the 80's when dating your gf, do you?...

      --
      I don't feel like it...
    3. Re:C'mon by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 1

      Heh... don't forget that the definition of an antique car is any car over 25 years old. And surely you remember if Microsoft built cars. Ergo 25-year old code is definitely antique. Or something like that.

      Eric
      My own blog^H^H^H^Hramblings
    4. Re:C'mon by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      There can be a general assumption that someone regularly reding slashdot does not have a girlfriend...

      -- Me, guy who's gf has no idea why i need to check Slashdot 5 times a day...

    5. Re:C'mon by ctr2sprt · · Score: 4, Funny
      I have underwear from the 80's that are just fine.
      Only on Slashdot would this be modded "Interesting."
  5. RTFA! by dotzie · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the FA:

    """
    There are other, smaller options like TCC that is a complete C compiler, but it's too geared to 386+ and Linux to be a good playground. Other open-source C compilers tend to be variations of Small C that, while understandable, don't implement the entire language.
    """

    1. Re:RTFA! by suitepotato · · Score: 1

      From the FA:

      """
      There are other, smaller options like TCC that is a complete C compiler, but it's too geared to 386+ and Linux to be a good playground. Other open-source C compilers tend to be variations of Small C that, while understandable, don't implement the entire language.
      """

      I think that was the entire point. We don't implement the entirety of the English language every day here where I live or in British universities for that matter and we're quite understandable. It might be different if to survive parsing by the listener not to mention quality review by the head of your department, that you had to squeeze in words like obsequious, vituperation, or Charles Schultz' favorite antidisestablishmentarianism.

      Except... in programming it is inevitably that the words aren't big and things may reduce to cryptic things like () and ++ which kills the understandability. So sad that something so easily read as Dartmouth standard BASIC should be tossed aside in favor of things that make you want to beat on an IBM Selectric at random to see if it produces a legal string of Perl code.

      Actually, chances are that it would and would win the code obfuscation contests, and if submitted to congress mistaken for the EPA's next budget and probably result in ten dozen public deconstruction readings in the local colleges finally being pontificated on in the editorial pages of the New York Post before being sued by Creators Syndicate for infringing on the IP of Johnny Hart as shamelessly stealing the conveyance of comic strip swearing, with three dupe postings in the YRO section of Slashdot.

      All because we insist on languages that must be implemented in their entirety to get anything done but are as non-understandable as an obsequious and vituperative antidisestablishmentarian.

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    2. Re:RTFA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand you.
      Could you be more concise?

  6. Shareware Catalogs by vasqzr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember seeing this in shareware catalogs. Didn't it generate assembler code, and you had to have MASM to build your program?

    Anyone remember MIX C? They used to have the full-page ads in Computer Shopper, you got the compiler, book, and everything for $59.95.

    I never got to use either of them, I was lucky enough to get a copy of Borland Turbo C.

    1. Re:Shareware Catalogs by rot26 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      IIRC, the DeSmet compiler was the cheapest "real" compiler you could get in the early 80's. Mix was more like a toy. Support was excellent... I called them once to ask a stupid question, and they said "We don't know, why don't you call Mark?" and then they gave me his home phone number, and I promptly woke him up. FWIW, I believe that Mark DeSmet wrote the macro assembler that Intel used internally as well.

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    2. Re:Shareware Catalogs by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      I was lucky enough to get a copy of Borland Turbo C.

      Ahhh, the memories...

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    3. Re:Shareware Catalogs by belmolis · · Score: 1

      Yes, I used MIX C when I had to write for DOS. It was great. A nice compiler, for which you could also get a pretty nice windowing/graphics library and various other things, for very little money. I think that the compiler by itself was only $20 when I got it. I've always wondered how the company made a profit with such low prices.

      It looks like they're still in business. Their website was updated less than a year ago.

  7. Not for serious use by Nasarius · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From the article:
    I started feeling the usual insane urge to play with a C compiler source.

    It seems it's more for people who just want to poke at the source of a real compiler, without having to deal with the mind-boggling complexities of GCC. I might take a look myself.

    --
    LOAD "SIG",8,1
    1. Re:Not for serious use by justins · · Score: 1
      It seems it's more for people who just want to poke at the source of a real compiler, without having to deal with the mind-boggling complexities of GCC. I might take a look myself.

      If I were in that position I'd take a look at the Plan 9 compiler.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    2. Re:Not for serious use by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Informative

      for that purpose, lcc is pretty good. The source is available for free, but there's also a college-level compiler book which goes along with it. The parsing and lexing are done manually (rather than generated via flex/lex and bison/yacc).

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  8. next stop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Id like to see the hisoft compiler open sourced.

  9. Amiga-era compilers: DICE, VBCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DICE C, wildly popular on the Amiga is free and available here. DICE was how Matt Dillon (As in DragonFly BSD) made his name as a programmer.

    VBCC, also popular on the Amiga, is free.

  10. The 80s? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought they didn't even give copyright to software until the 90s.

    1. Re:The 80s? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Your thinking of patents.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:The 80s? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're thinking of "you're", not your

  11. Addendum by JordanH · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I was in a hurry when I submitted this story.

    I should have added that I saw this on the excellent PLNews: Programming Language News site.

  12. Also check out the ACK by david.given · · Score: 2, Interesting
    You can never have too many compilers, is my motto. Kudos to the author for making it open source.

    <PLUG>

    If you want to try something altogether larger, more powerful and more flexible, then check out the ACK --- this is a compiler toolchain written by Andy Tanenbaum and Ceriel Jacobs that was released under a BSD license a few years ago. It supports K&R C, ANSI C, Pascal, Modula 2, Occam, Basic and Fortran, and supports a whole bunch of (slightly elderly) architectures. A subset of the compiler comes with Minix, if you've ever used that. Ever wanted to run Occam programs on your Apple I? Yep, you can do that.

    It's way, way smaller than gcc, astonishingly faster, much easier to port new architectures for, and produces adequate if not brilliant code.

    </PLUG>

    1. Re:Also check out the ACK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you're at it, you can also, at your option, either thank Tanenbaum for supplying the inspiration that started gcc, or throw rocks at him for wanting to hitch a then-commercial compiler on the back of Stallman's GNU.

  13. Some thoughts on DeSmet C by oldfogie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1) I survived a slashdotting! Yah!! (at least it wasn't the front page!)

    2) Where I expect the source code to show up most often is in someone's compiler class homework (unattributed, of course...)

    3) People have been asking "what's the use of an old compiler"? As I mentioned on the website, it's small enough so that a noobie (like me) can get their teeth into it. The code itself may never go anywhere, but the lessons learned will be around for a long time.

    Bill

    1. Re:Some thoughts on DeSmet C by that+_evil+_gleek · · Score: 1

      Well, if freedos gets some use, then a dos era compiler should as well.

  14. Hey, I still use that compiler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got software I wrote in the 80's that is still in use, which I still use that compiler for. It never was worth porting to a newer compiler, but sometimes I need to make cosmetic changes and recompile.

  15. That's a.. by xtal · · Score: 1

    unfortunate choice of domain on slashdot. :)

    --
    ..don't panic
  16. Retargetable? by tepples · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with newer compilers being geared for 386+?

    What about MIPS, SPARC, ARM, PowerPC? A retargetable compiler may prove useful to more people than one that makes too many x86-specific assumptions.