This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
It should mention, by way of example, this is (as I understand it) how some Lisps (and probably many other interpreted languages, as implied by the existing article content) compile stand-alone executable programs, as well as being the process (at least to some extent) in "normal" compilation, and especially for an optimising compiler, not just a theory.
Of course this is notable. Sexy stuff. See MetaML (MetaOCaml nowadays) for example.188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd be bold but I don't have time or sources at the moment, but I have wikilinked the above to help save someone time :-) Mark Hurd 00:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
You're kidding. This is a technique whose applications include program optimisation, compilation and compiler generation. It may not be well-known but it is definitely important. -- Derek Ross | Talk06:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the second Futamura projection equivalent to the Hart & Levin strategy used to create the first self-hosting compiler? "Compiler generation by self-application" sounds like just what they did: write a compiler in the source language and run it on itself in an interpreter for that language. --FOo 06:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I read the relevant article and no, they are alternatives. The second projection does "Compiler ← Specializer(Specializer, Interpreter)", while Hart & Levin did "Compiler ← Interpreter(Compiler-source, Compiler-source)". Hart & Levin's strategy just needs the compiler written in its own language. The second projection needs a good specializer, which I imagine is much harder to write if not incomputable in general. Hashproduct (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)