Talk:List of compilers

Converting to chart

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)

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)

architectures instead of platform?

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

compiler generators?

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)

Many more compilers could be added

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

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)

DevC++ is not a compiler

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)

mingw is for windows only

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)

MathScriptor

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)

DJGPP is DOS only

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)

Old compiler - code generator called Prototyper?

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)

The “IDE” column

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)

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)

How is MinGW a compiler?

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)

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)

Eclipse as an IDE

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)

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)

Ideone is not a compiler

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)

Unix-like?

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)

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)

Is CodeWarrior/C++ really freeware?

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)

DIBOL/DBL compilers **Suggested Section

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)

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

Forth ?

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)

Perl Compilers

The ActiveState ActivePerl distribution, dev kit, and I believe some versions of the MKS Toolkit have Perl compilers, called Perlc in the former case.