Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: Hans-Peter Diettrich Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Compilation Quotient (CQ): A Metric for the Compilation Hardness of Programming Languages Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:27:21 +0200 Organization: Compilers Central Sender: johnl%iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <24-06-016@comp.compilers> References: <24-06-003@comp.compilers> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="29487"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: syntax, semantics, comment Posted-Date: 12 Jun 2024 10:52:28 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com In-Reply-To: <24-06-003@comp.compilers> Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:3579 On 6/10/24 2:21 PM, John R Levine wrote: > generates small programs from > the grammars of several popular programs, I think that the *syntactic grammar* of program *languages* is meant: >> The key idea is to measure the compilation success rates of programs sampled from context-free grammars. << Then I wonder how ever valid random programs can be generated for languages that require a declaration before use of an identifier, clearly a *semantic* issue. A CQ of 40 for C indicates to me that certain semantic rules have been built into the program generator. Or what did I not understand right? DoDi [The paper describes the grammars they use. C grammar requires declarations precede other statements so that's easy to get right. -John]