Talk:Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
moved from article:
Second Edition (2006)
editSince the Second Edition has been released, this article now refers to a non-current edition of the book. I agree with an earlier comment on this talk page that the Dragon-Book-related articles should be merged and unified in some way. Alternatively, maybe the content of this article should be moved to Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools (First Edition), and the content of this article should be reworked to reflect the now-current Second Edition. --Strangetonic 23:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Errata
editThere are enough people complaining about lack of an Errata page despite errors found in this book. This entry is a request that we start such a page on our own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.185.157.95 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 10 April 2005 (UTC)
International Edition Cover
editDoes anyone know why the international edition dropped the dragon from the cover? Was it because, as suggested above, "it gay"? It'll create confusion to refer to "the purple dragon book", when it doesn't actually have a dragon on the cover. I also recall the book was supposed to contain source code related to the rendered image - or was that just additional downloadable material? barryd (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Purple dragon book b.jpg
edit
Image:Purple dragon book b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Color mixup
editThe first edition is informally called the “red dragon book” to distinguish it from the second edition and from Aho & Ullman’s Principles of Compiler Design (1977, sometimes known as the “green dragon book” because the dragon on its cover is green).
I believe it's the other way around.--76.69.255.151 (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree: I've got a 2nd Ed. on the shelf behind me and the dragon is definitely red, and I've seen a 1st Ed. with its green dragon. I have not changed this since I don't know what's in the cited reference. MarkMLl (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Edition status
editEverybody agrees that Aho and Ullman is the First Edition. Aho, Sethi and Ullman describes itself as "a descendant of" the older book so is clearly not simply a reprint: it should be called the second edition. I think the publisher is out of order for describing Aho, Lam, Sethi and Ullman as the second edition since it clearly has significant changes from the older work. MarkMLl (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
"21st Century Compilers" redirect
editWas this book originally titled 21st Century Compilers, (eg: in ACM http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=975157 with a different ISBN 0321131436) or is this a different work?
Curiously, searches for ISBN 0321131436 lead to the current article edition as well.
I ask because there's a redirect to this page, but no mention or explanation of the redirect's title or why it redirects here. I can't point to a rule about this, but I feel like redirects should be obvious or self-explanatory from the article.