Compilers :: essays research papers

size of it of issuanceing program generated (involving RAM and fixed storage) and part studiesA factor by which compilers for program languages can be compared is the size of the resulting program generated. Clearly, a smaller statute size is desirable since it is more(prenominal) memory-efficient, uses fewer computer resources and allows the computer to choke off and run more programs at once. For instance, a program required a minimum of 49 bytes of random access memory(RAM) and 580 words of read- single memory(ROM) when compiled by the C compiler CSS-C V3.000, but required an average RAM of 65 bytes and ROM of 722 words when compiled by advanced PICC V7.86, according to tests run by the CSS developers. Clearly, CSS-C V3.000 is a better compiler in this case Studies have also shown that the V.8.0c of the Microsoft compiler produces smaller and faster code than the CAD-UL Compiler and the V.5.0 of the Paradigm C/C++ Compiler . Of the three, the Microsoft compiler also has the best optimiser for 186, which whitethorn be some other factor of comparison for compilers of programming languages.User friendliness of compiler and case studiesThe user-friendliness of a compiler is another factor by which compilers for programming languages may be compared. User-friendliness is important since compilers which are more user-friendly generally result in greater productivity as the programmer is likely to ascertain more comfortable, and hence be more efficient, using the compiler. For instance, the above HI-TECH C compiler stresses full ANSI compliance and forces the programmer to develop an insinuate knowledge of the hardware. The CSS compiler, on the other hand, insulates the programmer from the hardware and has a big library of useful routines. Clearly the latter is more user-friendly and then desirable. Diversity of supported platforms and case studiesAnother factor of comparison would be the diversity of platforms supported by the compiler. Compilers w hich support a greater transition of platforms may be favoured because they are more versatile. For instance, IARs C compiler supports only Windows and DOS, but Imagecrafts C compiler supports Windows, DOS and Linux, giving the programmer more flexibility in compiling operations.