Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end From: "BartC" Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Writing A Plain English Compiler Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 00:35:20 -0000 Organization: virginmedia.com Lines: 48 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <14-11-013@comp.compilers> References: <14-11-004@comp.compilers> <14-11-008@comp.compilers> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: miucha.iecc.com 1415423369 15393 2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970 (8 Nov 2014 05:09:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 05:09:29 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: design, syntax Posted-Date: 08 Nov 2014 00:09:29 EST X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:1421 "BartC" wrote in message news:14-11-008@comp.compilers... > (I assume this syntax would just be a front-end to a conventional language > and conventional compiler, as your list suggests, and is not some > super-advanced AI project that can understand anything.) > > Using syntax that looks like written English sounds attractive, and might be > suitable for some kinds of command-line interaction ('kill dwarf with axe'), > but I'm not sure it would be taken seriously for real programming. > > Maybe, a tool can be used to translate conventional syntax into the English > style you propose, which would be fun, but I don't know if it warrants > creating a whole new language. Not if it doesn't otherwise do anything new. > > [Back in the 1970s there was a vogue for extensible languages, in > which you could add new syntax on the fly, by adding new BNF to the > underlying grammar. They all disappeared, because what happened was > that no two programs were written in the same langauge and nobody > could read them. Now we have OOP, where the syntax doesn't change, > but you can add lots of new types and semantics to go with them. > -John] They haven't all disappeared; there is still Seed7 (sometimes appearing in this group). Although this language supposedly has a user-extensible syntax, I've never seen source examples that look like anything other than Seed7, so perhaps my worry that everyone will invent a different look isn't justified. (Or maybe I just haven't seen fully customised versions of it; or haven't recognised them!) With OOP, I don't really agree with 'language building' features being used for everyday coding, at least not to the extent they are available in C++ for example. It makes everything a lot more complicated (language and compiler), and I think encourages people to use them unnecessarily. My point of view is a little unusual however, because I use my own compilers, so adding a new, fully overloaded type for example, is easily done by changing something in the compiler; that means the ability to do that directly in the language is not a priority. Maybe there is a need to do these things in an easier manner, but without going so far as allowing a free-for-all as some languages do. -- Bartc