Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.compilers > #2137 > unrolled thread

Re: Compiler implementation language preference ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.compilers

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Compiler implementation language preference ? Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2018-12-20 18:51 +0000
    Re: Compiler implementation language preference ? Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com> - 2018-12-21 23:44 +0000

#2137 — Re: Compiler implementation language preference ?

On 19/12/18 19:54, Aaron Gray wrote:
> Pity there are no real compiler-compilers anymore, hint-hint, I am
> working on one to rule them all ;)
>
> [Please don't say you've invented another UNCOL. -John]

I may be wrong but read Aaron's message to mean that he is
working on a domain specific language for writing compilers,
in the style of Language Oriented Programming,
rather than a universal intermediate program representation language,
which is what UNCOL attempted to be.

The original paper on Language Oriented Programming:

http://www.gkc.org.uk/martin/papers/middle-out-t.pdf

--
			Martin

Dr Martin Ward | Email: martin@gkc.org.uk | http://www.gkc.org.uk
G.K.Chesterton site: http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc | Erdos number: 4

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2139

On 2018-12-20, Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> wrote:
> On 19/12/18 19:54, Aaron Gray wrote:
>> Pity there are no real compiler-compilers anymore, hint-hint, I am
>> working on one to rule them all ;)
>>
>> [Please don't say you've invented another UNCOL. -John]
>
> I may be wrong but read Aaron's message to mean that he is
> working on a domain specific language for writing compilers,
> in the style of Language Oriented Programming,
> rather than a universal intermediate program representation language,
> which is what UNCOL attempted to be.
>
> The original paper on Language Oriented Programming:
>
> http://www.gkc.org.uk/martin/papers/middle-out-t.pdf

From that:

>> "In the case of the FermaT tool, the lowest level translator and
>> support library consists of 2–3,000 lines of LISP code. This
>> translates from low-level META WSL to LISP, all the rest of the system
>> is written in META WSL. To port the system to a new version of LISP, or
>> even to a new base language such as C, only requires rewriting the
>> lowest level translator: and this is a comparatively small task–in fact,
>> the first version of the translator was wr itten in less than three man
>> days. The FermaT system is currently being ported from a Unix environm
>> ent to a PC environment, using C rather than LISP as the implementation
>> language."

That language hopping aspect reminds me of MAL (Make A Lisp): a project
which bootstraps the same Lisp dialect (its own) in numerous different
languages (currently 74):

https://github.com/kanaka/mal

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.compilers

csiph-web