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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #22405

Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang?

Show all headers | View raw

On Sunday, May 5, 2013 2:12:35 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> wrote:
> 
> > "Andrew Haley" <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
> 
> > news:S-6dncHYyamWohnMnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@supernews.com...
> 
> >> Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> wrote:
> 
> >> > "Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> 
> > news:72351a29-1334-4832-86ff-92186fdf0ef4@tz3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> 
> >> >> On May 1, 8:02 am, Andrew Haley
> 
> >> > <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
> 
> >> >> wrote:
> 
> >> >> > Rod Pemberton <do_not_h...@notemailnotq.cpm> wrote:
> 
> > ...
> 
> > 
> 
> >> >> > > Go is one just more example of a language that is
> 
> >> >> > > compiled to C,
> 
> >> >> >
> 
> >> >> > No it's not. There's a real GCC front end for it. It
> 
> >> >> > doesn't get compiled into C.
> 
> >> >
> 
> >> > It does.
> 
> >>
> 
> >> No, it doesn't.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Does too.
> 
> > 
> 
> >> > It was done once but manually for all the syntax of a
> 
> >> > language.  One can't create a GCC front-end without doing so.
> 
> >>
> 
> >> One certainly can.  What does "It was done once but manually for
> 
> >> all the syntax of a language" mean?
> 
> > 
> 
> > Each piece of unique language syntax for Go is manually, i.e., by
> 
> > a person, converted to C.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no more sense than the sentence it's supposed to clarify.
> 
> The front end converts Go trees to GCC trees, and it was written by a
> 
> person.  Does this mean that Go gets compiled into C?  No.
> 
> 
> 
> >>> Do you have any idea what a compiler front end does?
> 
> 
> 
> > Absolutely, I've written a half-dozen or so from scratch, so they
> 
> > don't follow standard techniques...  I've also written a Forth
> 
> > interpreter in C from scratch using the historical methods.  Oddly,
> 
> > that uses many of the standard Computer Science techniques, but
> 
> > simplified, and given weird non-Computer Science terminology...
> 
> > I've also used flex and bison for full ISO C front end.  But, you
> 
> > should've known that from my description below involving ASTs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  Your postings are sometimes so incoherent it's hard to
> 
> tell.
> 
> 
> 
> >> > It really doesn't matter whether you look at the high-level
> 
> >> > overview, i.e., compiles into C, or you switch topics to the
> 
> >> > actual low-level implementation specific details.  The result
> 
> >> > and process is the same or nearly so.  The code is parsed and
> 
> >> > represented as either C or a representation of C.  To do that,
> 
> >> > at some point it was converted to C, even if that was only
> 
> >> > once.
> 
> >> >
> 
> >> > In the high-level perspective, the Go code goes through this
> 
> >> > process (basically):
> 
> >> >
> 
> >> >  Go -> emitted as C
> 
> >>
> 
> >> No.  There is a GCC front end for go.  It does not get converted
> 
> >> into C.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Either way, the code is or was converted to C or a internal
> 
> > representation of C.
> 
> 
> 
> It is converted into GCC generic trees.  C is a programming langauge.
> 
> Go is not converted into C.  The C compiler is not involved.
> 
> 
> 
> >> > With -O1, -O2, and -O3 optimization, the code is roughly 90%,
> 
> >> > 95%, 99% the same.  The only real difference is whether there
> 
> >> > is a file of actual emitted C code or not.
> 
> >>
> 
> >> Indeed, that is the difference.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Indeed, that is one difference.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Either way, the code is or was converted to C or a internal
> 
> > representation of C.
> 
> 
> 
> You are now back-pedalling on your original claim which was:
> 
> 
> 
> >> > In both cases, the Go code is still converted to C, and is
> 
> >> > still represented as C.
> 
> 
> 
> This now stands revealed as nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> >> > Why?  Because, the AST for GCC was designed to represent C code.
> 
> >> > I.e., to write a Go front end for C one converts the Go code into
> 
> >> > equivalent C code for all the syntactic elements of Go.  Next,
> 
> >> > the equivalent C code for Go is parsed by GCC's C front end.
> 
> >>
> 
> >> No, that's not right.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Yes, it is.  Well, that's the 2nd easiest way.
> 
> 
> 
> The question isn't what the easiest way is, but how it actually works.
> 
> The C front end is only involved when parsing C source code.  When
> 
> compiling Go, the C front end is not called.
> 
> 
> 
> > The 1st easiest way is to emit C code directly. 
> 
> 
> 
> Which the Go compiler doesn't do.
> 
> 
> 
> >> The C front end does not get called; it is not involved in any way.
> 
> > 
> 
> > You're correct. 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent.  That's all I wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> > However, I didn't say that here for this case.  I said that for the
> 
> > other case.  So, please, re-read.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you, or did you not, claim that: "the equivalent C code for Go is
> 
> parsed by GCC's C front end." ?
> 
> 
> 
> >> The go code is parsed and compiled straight into GCC trees.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Well, that's what was said here.  Please, read more carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you, or did you not, claim that: "the equivalent C code for Go is
> 
> parsed by GCC's C front end." ?
> 
> 
> 
> >> > This is where they tell you GCC only handles an AST for C, but
> 
> >> > that it can be used for similar languages, i.e., those
> 
> >> > compileable to C...
> 
> >> > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Languages.html#Languages
> 
> >>
> 
> >> Which doesn't say what you think it says.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Read the first sentence.
> 
> > 
> 
> > If it doesn't say that, what does it say?
> 
> 
> 
> It says that the interface to front ends for languages in GCC, and in
> 
> particular the tree structure (see GENERIC), was initially designed
> 
> for C, and many aspects of it are still somewhat biased towards C and
> 
> C-like languages. It is, however, reasonably well suited to other
> 
> procedural languages, and front ends for many such languages have been
> 
> written for GCC.
> 
> 
> 
> >> > AIR, I provide proof to you (and others here) that nearly all
> 
> >> > languages are or have been compiled to C, and all major
> 
> >> > languages of use today are C derivatives (currently, over
> 
> >> > 61%).
> 
> >>
> 
> >> That may be what you recall; it's not what anyone else recalls.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Well, I did so.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, no, especially not if that claim is based on your
> 
> misunderstanding that
> 
> 
> 
> >> >> > > Go is one just more example of a language that is
> 
> >> >> > > compiled to C,
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew.

hold him down and fuck him until he admits his error

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-04-30 15:12 -0700
  Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-30 20:52 -0700
    Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-05-03 15:59 -0700
  Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-05-01 08:02 -0400
    Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2013-05-01 05:33 -0700
    Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-05-01 10:02 -0500
      Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-05-01 15:28 -0700
        Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-05-03 16:07 -0400
          Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-05-03 17:49 -0500
            Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-05-05 00:51 -0400
              Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-05-05 04:12 -0500
                Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-05-06 23:17 -0700
                Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? AKE <assadebrahim2000@gmail.com> - 2013-05-07 10:36 -0700
                Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-05-07 18:57 -0400
                Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-05-08 02:54 -0500
                Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-05-08 02:03 -0700
                Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-05-08 12:18 -0500
                Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-05-08 20:53 -0700
                Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-05-07 14:25 -0700
    Re: are forthers still unimpressed with go lang? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-05-03 16:00 -0700

csiph-web