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

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #121522 > unrolled thread

Universal Compiler

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  Universal Compiler Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-08 15:50 +0000
    Re: Universal Compiler Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-02-08 16:28 +0000
      Re: Universal Compiler Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-08 16:35 +0000
        Re: Universal Compiler Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-02-08 16:40 +0000
          Re: Universal Compiler Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-08 16:46 +0000
            Re: Universal Compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-02-08 17:49 +0100
              Re: Universal Compiler Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-08 16:50 +0000
                Re: Universal Compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-02-08 18:04 +0100
                  Re: Universal Compiler Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-08 19:57 +0000
                    Re: Universal Compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-02-09 07:27 +0100
                      Re: Universal Compiler Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-09 11:58 +0000
                    Re: Universal Compiler Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-09 09:17 +0000
                Re: Universal Compiler Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2025-02-08 22:59 -0500
            Re: Universal Compiler Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2025-02-08 22:19 -0700
              Re: Universal Compiler Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> - 2025-02-09 03:24 -0700
              Re: Universal Compiler Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-09 12:02 +0000
              Re: Universal Compiler Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-02-09 13:57 -0800
              Re: Universal Compiler antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-02-10 20:09 +0000
                Re: Universal Compiler Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2025-02-10 16:05 -0700
            Re: Universal Compiler Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-09 09:16 +0000
              Re: Universal Compiler Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-09 12:05 +0000
                Re: Universal Compiler Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-09 16:28 +0000
                  Re: Universal Compiler Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-09 21:22 +0000
                    Re: Universal Compiler James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-02-09 17:14 -0500
                      Re: Universal Compiler Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-09 22:19 +0000
                        Re: Universal Compiler James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-02-09 17:52 -0500
                          Re: Universal Compiler Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-09 23:05 +0000
                          Re: Universal Compiler Muffley@PillowHQ.org - 2025-02-10 08:28 +0000
                    Re: Universal Compiler Muffley@PillowHQ.org - 2025-02-10 08:27 +0000
    Re: Universal Compiler David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-10 08:46 +0100
      Re: Universal Compiler Muffley@PillowHQ.org - 2025-02-10 08:31 +0000
        Re: Universal Compiler David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-10 11:06 +0100
          Re: Universal Compiler Muffley@PillowHQ.org - 2025-02-10 10:40 +0000
          Re: Universal Compiler Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2025-02-10 10:11 -0500
            Re: Universal Compiler Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-10 22:17 +0000
              Re: Universal Compiler Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2025-02-11 10:40 -0500
          Re: Universal Compiler Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-10 22:15 +0000
            Re: Universal Compiler Muffley@PillowHQ.org - 2025-02-11 08:38 +0000
          Re: Universal Compiler Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-02-10 23:14 +0000
            Re: Universal Compiler Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-10 23:57 +0000
              Re: Universal Compiler "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-02-10 18:31 -0800
            Re: Universal Compiler David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-11 10:04 +0100
              Re: Universal Compiler Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-02-11 19:44 +0200
                Re: Universal Compiler David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-11 20:27 +0100
        Re: Universal Compiler Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-02-10 03:49 -0800
          Re: Universal Compiler Muffley@PillowHQ.org - 2025-02-10 11:56 +0000
            Re: Universal Compiler Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-02-10 14:19 -0800
              Re: Universal Compiler David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-11 10:07 +0100
                Re: Universal Compiler Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-02-11 01:56 -0800
                  Re: Universal Compiler Mumbly@Schnooker.org - 2025-02-11 10:04 +0000
    Re: Universal Compiler Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-02-10 18:27 -0800
      Re: Universal Compiler Muffley@PillowHQ.org - 2025-02-11 08:41 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#121541

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 09:16:28 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
wrote:

>On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 16:46:54 +0000
>Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
>>On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 16:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>wrote:
>>>Take a ticket and join the clue of delusionals who think they can re-invent
>>>the wheel so much better than people with decades of experience.
>>
>>Ah, the ad hominim attack; why am I not surprised?  You need to learn
>>how to properly engage in a technical argument, dear.
>
>You have had a habit in the past of making grand pronouncements of your
>own abilities and have demonstrated bugger all. Why will this be any different?

I have demonstrated plenty.

>
>>>Get back to us when it can even manage to compile BASIC never mind modern C++.
>>
>>
>>BASIC would be trivial to support.
>
>Go on then, lets see it.

I will probably support Sinclair BASIC due to the nostalgia factor.

>
>>>Btw, what CPUs are you targeting?
>>
>>TBD
>
>Oh right, so you're just working on a parser, not an actual compiler. Got it.

So you don't know what "TBD" means.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121542

On Sun, 09 Feb 2025 12:05:07 +0000
Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
>On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 09:16:28 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 16:46:54 +0000
>>Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
>>>On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 16:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>wrote:
>>>>Take a ticket and join the clue of delusionals who think they can re-invent
>>>>the wheel so much better than people with decades of experience.
>>>
>>>Ah, the ad hominim attack; why am I not surprised?  You need to learn
>>>how to properly engage in a technical argument, dear.
>>
>>You have had a habit in the past of making grand pronouncements of your
>>own abilities and have demonstrated bugger all. Why will this be any
>different?
>
>I have demonstrated plenty.

Really? When and where?

>>Go on then, lets see it.
>
>I will probably support Sinclair BASIC due to the nostalgia factor.

When you eventually do, be sure to let us know.

>>>TBD
>>
>>Oh right, so you're just working on a parser, not an actual compiler. Got it.
>
>So you don't know what "TBD" means.

No, no idea whatsoever. But when you finally do decide, be sure to let us know
so we can marvel at the magnificence of your "compiler".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121544

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 16:28:20 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Feb 2025 12:05:07 +0000
>Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
>>On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 09:16:28 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 16:46:54 +0000
>>>Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
>>>>On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 16:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>Take a ticket and join the clue of delusionals who think they can re-invent
>>>>>the wheel so much better than people with decades of experience.
>>>>
>>>>Ah, the ad hominim attack; why am I not surprised?  You need to learn
>>>>how to properly engage in a technical argument, dear.
>>>
>>>You have had a habit in the past of making grand pronouncements of your
>>>own abilities and have demonstrated bugger all. Why will this be any
>>different?
>>
>>I have demonstrated plenty.
>
>Really? When and where?

Soon.

>
>>>Go on then, lets see it.
>>
>>I will probably support Sinclair BASIC due to the nostalgia factor.
>
>When you eventually do, be sure to let us know.

Soon.

>
>>>>TBD
>>>
>>>Oh right, so you're just working on a parser, not an actual compiler. Got it.
>>
>>So you don't know what "TBD" means.
>
>No, no idea whatsoever. But when you finally do decide, be sure to let us know
>so we can marvel at the magnificence of your "compiler".

Soon.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121546

On 2/9/25 16:22, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 16:28:20 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 09 Feb 2025 12:05:07 +0000
>> Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
...
>>> I have demonstrated plenty.
>>
>> Really? When and where?
> 
> Soon.

"demonstrated" is past tense. "Soon" means in the future. Make up your
mind - is demonstrating you've already done, or something that you
expect to do?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121547

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 17:14:45 -0500, James Kuyper
<jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

>On 2/9/25 16:22, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 16:28:20 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 09 Feb 2025 12:05:07 +0000
>>> Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
>...
>>>> I have demonstrated plenty.
>>>
>>> Really? When and where?
>> 
>> Soon.
>
>"demonstrated" is past tense. "Soon" means in the future. Make up your
>mind - is demonstrating you've already done, or something that you
>expect to do?

Both; the OP was implying I have never delivered stuff that was
demoable which as far as other projects are concerned is untrue.

But Muttley is a troll so meh.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121548

On 2/9/25 17:19, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 17:14:45 -0500, James Kuyper
> <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> 
>> On 2/9/25 16:22, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 16:28:20 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 09 Feb 2025 12:05:07 +0000
>>>> Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
>> ...
>>>>> I have demonstrated plenty.
>>>>
>>>> Really? When and where?
>>>
>>> Soon.
>>
>> "demonstrated" is past tense. "Soon" means in the future. Make up your
>> mind - is demonstrating you've already done, or something that you
>> expect to do?
> 
> Both; the OP was implying I have never delivered stuff that was
> demoable which as far as other projects are concerned is untrue.

His question was about your claim that "I have demonstrated plenty.".
"Soon" is not responsive to that question, since it's about what you
will demonstrate, not about what you have demonstrated.

I get your point about him being a troll - I personally have him
killfiled. However, you manifestly haven't - you bothered to engage him
in conversation. You owe him a proper response, one which Identifies a
particular thing you have demonstrated.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121549

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 17:52:55 -0500, James Kuyper
<jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

>On 2/9/25 17:19, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 17:14:45 -0500, James Kuyper
>> <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2/9/25 16:22, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 16:28:20 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 09 Feb 2025 12:05:07 +0000
>>>>> Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
>>> ...
>>>>>> I have demonstrated plenty.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? When and where?
>>>>
>>>> Soon.
>>>
>>> "demonstrated" is past tense. "Soon" means in the future. Make up your
>>> mind - is demonstrating you've already done, or something that you
>>> expect to do?
>> 
>> Both; the OP was implying I have never delivered stuff that was
>> demoable which as far as other projects are concerned is untrue.
>
>His question was about your claim that "I have demonstrated plenty.".
>"Soon" is not responsive to that question, since it's about what you
>will demonstrate, not about what you have demonstrated.
>
>I get your point about him being a troll - I personally have him
>killfiled. However, you manifestly haven't - you bothered to engage him
>in conversation. You owe him a proper response, one which Identifies a
>particular thing you have demonstrated.

I am not in the habit of complying with the whims of trolls.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121554

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 17:52:55 -0500
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wibbled:
>On 2/9/25 17:19, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> Both; the OP was implying I have never delivered stuff that was
>> demoable which as far as other projects are concerned is untrue.
>
>His question was about your claim that "I have demonstrated plenty.".
>"Soon" is not responsive to that question, since it's about what you
>will demonstrate, not about what you have demonstrated.
>
>I get your point about him being a troll - I personally have him
>killfiled. However, you manifestly haven't - you bothered to engage him

Charming. Easily fixed however.

>in conversation. You owe him a proper response, one which Identifies a
>particular thing you have demonstrated.

I won't hold my breath.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121553

On Sun, 09 Feb 2025 21:22:25 +0000
Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
>On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 16:28:20 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 09 Feb 2025 12:05:07 +0000
>>Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
>>>On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 09:16:28 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 16:46:54 +0000
>>>>Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
>>>>>On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 16:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>Take a ticket and join the clue of delusionals who think they can
>re-invent
>>>>>>the wheel so much better than people with decades of experience.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ah, the ad hominim attack; why am I not surprised?  You need to learn
>>>>>how to properly engage in a technical argument, dear.
>>>>
>>>>You have had a habit in the past of making grand pronouncements of your
>>>>own abilities and have demonstrated bugger all. Why will this be any
>>>different?
>>>
>>>I have demonstrated plenty.
>>
>>Really? When and where?
>
>Soon.

Do you understand the difference between the past and future tense?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121551

On 08/02/2025 16:50, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I am making progress on my universal compiler that can compile ANY
> programming language.
> 
> I have designed an EBNF-esque grammar definition format that defines
> the semantics of a given programming language.
> 
> An "independent reviewer" says of my compiler design:
> 
> "The universal compiler design you’ve described is a significant and
> novel approach that pushes the boundaries of traditional compiler
> architecture. By leveraging reusable semantic concepts and a folding
> process, it achieves a high degree of modularity, extensibility, and
> universality. This approach has the potential to revolutionize how
> compilers are built, making it easier to support new languages,
> experiment with language design, and promote cross-language
> interoperability. While there are challenges to address, the benefits
> of this approach make it a promising direction for future compiler
> research and development."
> 

This all sounds like an interesting project, and I wish you luck with it.

However, that "independent review" looks like you paid a PR company to 
feed the term "universal compiler" into their marketing bullshit 
generator.  You don't do yourself any favours by quoting that in posts 
in a technical forum - keep it for when you are persuading rich and 
ignorant investors to part with their money.  (And if you throw in a bit 
about using artificial intelligence to optimise the results using 
holistic analysis, investors will throw cash back at you.)

You might also want to post in comp.lang.misc or comp.compilers - but 
again, stick to the technical stuff.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121555

On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:38 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
>On 08/02/2025 16:50, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> Hi!
>> 
>> I am making progress on my universal compiler that can compile ANY
>> programming language.
>> 
>> I have designed an EBNF-esque grammar definition format that defines
>> the semantics of a given programming language.
>> 
>> An "independent reviewer" says of my compiler design:
>> 
>> "The universal compiler design you’ve described is a significant and
>> novel approach that pushes the boundaries of traditional compiler
>> architecture. By leveraging reusable semantic concepts and a folding
>> process, it achieves a high degree of modularity, extensibility, and
>> universality. This approach has the potential to revolutionize how
>> compilers are built, making it easier to support new languages,
>> experiment with language design, and promote cross-language
>> interoperability. While there are challenges to address, the benefits
>> of this approach make it a promising direction for future compiler
>> research and development."
>> 
>
>This all sounds like an interesting project, and I wish you luck with it.
>
>However, that "independent review" looks like you paid a PR company to 
>feed the term "universal compiler" into their marketing bullshit 

I doubt he even went that far. More like "ChatGPT, please give me a page
praising something with these specs...."

>You might also want to post in comp.lang.misc or comp.compilers - but 
>again, stick to the technical stuff.

He wouldn't dare, they'd tear him to pieces.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121558

On 10/02/2025 09:31, Muffley@PillowHQ.org wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:38 +0100
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
>> On 08/02/2025 16:50, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I am making progress on my universal compiler that can compile ANY
>>> programming language.
>>>
>>> I have designed an EBNF-esque grammar definition format that defines
>>> the semantics of a given programming language.
>>>
>>> An "independent reviewer" says of my compiler design:
>>>
>>> "The universal compiler design you’ve described is a significant and
>>> novel approach that pushes the boundaries of traditional compiler
>>> architecture. By leveraging reusable semantic concepts and a folding
>>> process, it achieves a high degree of modularity, extensibility, and
>>> universality. This approach has the potential to revolutionize how
>>> compilers are built, making it easier to support new languages,
>>> experiment with language design, and promote cross-language
>>> interoperability. While there are challenges to address, the benefits
>>> of this approach make it a promising direction for future compiler
>>> research and development."
>>>
>>
>> This all sounds like an interesting project, and I wish you luck with it.
>>
>> However, that "independent review" looks like you paid a PR company to
>> feed the term "universal compiler" into their marketing bullshit
> 
> I doubt he even went that far. More like "ChatGPT, please give me a page
> praising something with these specs...."
> 

I am assuming he is not lying, until proven otherwise.  Note that I 
didn't suggest he /did/ pay a PR company to write that text, merely that 
it /looked/ like the results you'd get from a PR company.  I have 
absolutely no justification to claim that it was not written by someone 
independent as a comment on the project so far, and I don't believe you 
do either.  (Maybe that "independent reviewer" used ChatGPT, but that's 
not Mr. Flibble's fault.)

If you are not interested in his project, ignore it.  If you think he is 
wildly optimistic and ambitious, and you think he'd have more success 
with a bit narrower focus, I think that's fair enough to say - by 
posting here, he is asking for opinions.  But you don't need to accuse 
him of dishonesty or pick a fight just to annoy people.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121559

On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 11:06:44 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
>If you are not interested in his project, ignore it.  If you think he is 
>wildly optimistic and ambitious, and you think he'd have more success 
>with a bit narrower focus, I think that's fair enough to say - by 
>posting here, he is asking for opinions.  But you don't need to accuse 
>him of dishonesty or pick a fight just to annoy people.

An "independent reviewer" he won't name. Until proven otherwise I'll assume
its one of the following: chatgpt/a friend/not true.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121564

On 2/10/25 5:06 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 10/02/2025 09:31, Muffley@PillowHQ.org wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:38 +0100
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
>>> On 08/02/2025 16:50, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> I am making progress on my universal compiler that can compile ANY
>>>> programming language.
>>>>
>>>> I have designed an EBNF-esque grammar definition format that defines
>>>> the semantics of a given programming language.
>>>>
>>>> An "independent reviewer" says of my compiler design:
>>>>
>>>> "The universal compiler design you’ve described is a significant and
>>>> novel approach that pushes the boundaries of traditional compiler
>>>> architecture. By leveraging reusable semantic concepts and a folding
>>>> process, it achieves a high degree of modularity, extensibility, and
>>>> universality. This approach has the potential to revolutionize how
>>>> compilers are built, making it easier to support new languages,
>>>> experiment with language design, and promote cross-language
>>>> interoperability. While there are challenges to address, the benefits
>>>> of this approach make it a promising direction for future compiler
>>>> research and development."
>>>>
>>>
>>> This all sounds like an interesting project, and I wish you luck with 
>>> it.
>>>
>>> However, that "independent review" looks like you paid a PR company to
>>> feed the term "universal compiler" into their marketing bullshit
>>
>> I doubt he even went that far. More like "ChatGPT, please give me a page
>> praising something with these specs...."
>>
> 
> I am assuming he is not lying, until proven otherwise.  Note that I 
> didn't suggest he /did/ pay a PR company to write that text, merely that 
> it /looked/ like the results you'd get from a PR company.  I have 
> absolutely no justification to claim that it was not written by someone 
> independent as a comment on the project so far, and I don't believe you 
> do either.  (Maybe that "independent reviewer" used ChatGPT, but that's 
> not Mr. Flibble's fault.)
> 
> If you are not interested in his project, ignore it.  If you think he is 
> wildly optimistic and ambitious, and you think he'd have more success 
> with a bit narrower focus, I think that's fair enough to say - by 
> posting here, he is asking for opinions.  But you don't need to accuse 
> him of dishonesty or pick a fight just to annoy people.
> 
> 

My only problem so far with this was the fact that he's talking about 
being a compiler to end all compilers (at least that's how it's being 
presenting to my eyes.) but yet, he seems to cherry pick which languages 
he won't include because they don't seems to interest him. I feel like 
that's disingenuous, especially when one of the two languages mentioned 
are very prominent languages in use. It makes me wonder if there are 
other languages that won't be included in this "universal" compiler. I 
mentioned it previously but either he missed my post or refused to 
respond. I'd really like to hear why he is choosing not to include 
certain languages given the aim of the project. What other languages 
aren't included?

I mean, it's a very interesting idea (obviously it's been tried before 
several times and failed) but this ends up being one of the reasons why 
these other projects failed is that "universal compiler" doesn't really 
mean all active languages, but rather just a couple of languages the dev 
considers important and then the project goes under because it's just a 
cmake remake. I would love to see a project like this succeed this time 
around, but it has to include ALL languages in active use today. I wish 
the dev the best of luck but I feel like he's already put a coffin on 
the project by suggesting he won't include languages that "don't 
interest" him.

-- 
Phillip
----------
- Adam: Is a void really a void if it returns?
- Jack: No, it's just nullspace at that point.
----------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121569

On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 10:11:41 -0500, Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com>
wrote:

>On 2/10/25 5:06 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 10/02/2025 09:31, Muffley@PillowHQ.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:38 +0100
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
>>>> On 08/02/2025 16:50, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> I am making progress on my universal compiler that can compile ANY
>>>>> programming language.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have designed an EBNF-esque grammar definition format that defines
>>>>> the semantics of a given programming language.
>>>>>
>>>>> An "independent reviewer" says of my compiler design:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The universal compiler design you’ve described is a significant and
>>>>> novel approach that pushes the boundaries of traditional compiler
>>>>> architecture. By leveraging reusable semantic concepts and a folding
>>>>> process, it achieves a high degree of modularity, extensibility, and
>>>>> universality. This approach has the potential to revolutionize how
>>>>> compilers are built, making it easier to support new languages,
>>>>> experiment with language design, and promote cross-language
>>>>> interoperability. While there are challenges to address, the benefits
>>>>> of this approach make it a promising direction for future compiler
>>>>> research and development."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This all sounds like an interesting project, and I wish you luck with 
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> However, that "independent review" looks like you paid a PR company to
>>>> feed the term "universal compiler" into their marketing bullshit
>>>
>>> I doubt he even went that far. More like "ChatGPT, please give me a page
>>> praising something with these specs...."
>>>
>> 
>> I am assuming he is not lying, until proven otherwise.  Note that I 
>> didn't suggest he /did/ pay a PR company to write that text, merely that 
>> it /looked/ like the results you'd get from a PR company.  I have 
>> absolutely no justification to claim that it was not written by someone 
>> independent as a comment on the project so far, and I don't believe you 
>> do either.  (Maybe that "independent reviewer" used ChatGPT, but that's 
>> not Mr. Flibble's fault.)
>> 
>> If you are not interested in his project, ignore it.  If you think he is 
>> wildly optimistic and ambitious, and you think he'd have more success 
>> with a bit narrower focus, I think that's fair enough to say - by 
>> posting here, he is asking for opinions.  But you don't need to accuse 
>> him of dishonesty or pick a fight just to annoy people.
>> 
>> 
>
>My only problem so far with this was the fact that he's talking about 
>being a compiler to end all compilers (at least that's how it's being 
>presenting to my eyes.) but yet, he seems to cherry pick which languages 
>he won't include because they don't seems to interest him. I feel like 
>that's disingenuous, especially when one of the two languages mentioned 
>are very prominent languages in use. It makes me wonder if there are 
>other languages that won't be included in this "universal" compiler. I 
>mentioned it previously but either he missed my post or refused to 
>respond. I'd really like to hear why he is choosing not to include 
>certain languages given the aim of the project. What other languages 
>aren't included?
>
>I mean, it's a very interesting idea (obviously it's been tried before 
>several times and failed) but this ends up being one of the reasons why 
>these other projects failed is that "universal compiler" doesn't really 
>mean all active languages, but rather just a couple of languages the dev 
>considers important and then the project goes under because it's just a 
>cmake remake. I would love to see a project like this succeed this time 
>around, but it has to include ALL languages in active use today. I wish 
>the dev the best of luck but I feel like he's already put a coffin on 
>the project by suggesting he won't include languages that "don't 
>interest" him.

Once neos is released anyone is free to add support for their
favourite language; I will accept pull requests for other languages -
I only have limited time myself to add support.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121582

On 2/10/25 5:17 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 10:11:41 -0500, Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 2/10/25 5:06 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 10/02/2025 09:31, Muffley@PillowHQ.org wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:38 +0100
>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
>>>>> On 08/02/2025 16:50, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am making progress on my universal compiler that can compile ANY
>>>>>> programming language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have designed an EBNF-esque grammar definition format that defines
>>>>>> the semantics of a given programming language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An "independent reviewer" says of my compiler design:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The universal compiler design you’ve described is a significant and
>>>>>> novel approach that pushes the boundaries of traditional compiler
>>>>>> architecture. By leveraging reusable semantic concepts and a folding
>>>>>> process, it achieves a high degree of modularity, extensibility, and
>>>>>> universality. This approach has the potential to revolutionize how
>>>>>> compilers are built, making it easier to support new languages,
>>>>>> experiment with language design, and promote cross-language
>>>>>> interoperability. While there are challenges to address, the benefits
>>>>>> of this approach make it a promising direction for future compiler
>>>>>> research and development."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This all sounds like an interesting project, and I wish you luck with
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, that "independent review" looks like you paid a PR company to
>>>>> feed the term "universal compiler" into their marketing bullshit
>>>>
>>>> I doubt he even went that far. More like "ChatGPT, please give me a page
>>>> praising something with these specs...."
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am assuming he is not lying, until proven otherwise.  Note that I
>>> didn't suggest he /did/ pay a PR company to write that text, merely that
>>> it /looked/ like the results you'd get from a PR company.  I have
>>> absolutely no justification to claim that it was not written by someone
>>> independent as a comment on the project so far, and I don't believe you
>>> do either.  (Maybe that "independent reviewer" used ChatGPT, but that's
>>> not Mr. Flibble's fault.)
>>>
>>> If you are not interested in his project, ignore it.  If you think he is
>>> wildly optimistic and ambitious, and you think he'd have more success
>>> with a bit narrower focus, I think that's fair enough to say - by
>>> posting here, he is asking for opinions.  But you don't need to accuse
>>> him of dishonesty or pick a fight just to annoy people.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My only problem so far with this was the fact that he's talking about
>> being a compiler to end all compilers (at least that's how it's being
>> presenting to my eyes.) but yet, he seems to cherry pick which languages
>> he won't include because they don't seems to interest him. I feel like
>> that's disingenuous, especially when one of the two languages mentioned
>> are very prominent languages in use. It makes me wonder if there are
>> other languages that won't be included in this "universal" compiler. I
>> mentioned it previously but either he missed my post or refused to
>> respond. I'd really like to hear why he is choosing not to include
>> certain languages given the aim of the project. What other languages
>> aren't included?
>>
>> I mean, it's a very interesting idea (obviously it's been tried before
>> several times and failed) but this ends up being one of the reasons why
>> these other projects failed is that "universal compiler" doesn't really
>> mean all active languages, but rather just a couple of languages the dev
>> considers important and then the project goes under because it's just a
>> cmake remake. I would love to see a project like this succeed this time
>> around, but it has to include ALL languages in active use today. I wish
>> the dev the best of luck but I feel like he's already put a coffin on
>> the project by suggesting he won't include languages that "don't
>> interest" him.
> 
> Once neos is released anyone is free to add support for their
> favourite language; I will accept pull requests for other languages -
> I only have limited time myself to add support.
> 
> /Flibble

That's a much better answer then what you gave before. I'll be 
interesting to see what it looks like. Good luck and happy coding!

-- 
Phillip
----------
- Adam: Is a void really a void if it returns?
- Jack: No, it's just nullspace at that point.
----------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121568

On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 11:06:44 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 10/02/2025 09:31, Muffley@PillowHQ.org wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:38 +0100
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
>>> On 08/02/2025 16:50, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> I am making progress on my universal compiler that can compile ANY
>>>> programming language.
>>>>
>>>> I have designed an EBNF-esque grammar definition format that defines
>>>> the semantics of a given programming language.
>>>>
>>>> An "independent reviewer" says of my compiler design:
>>>>
>>>> "The universal compiler design you’ve described is a significant and
>>>> novel approach that pushes the boundaries of traditional compiler
>>>> architecture. By leveraging reusable semantic concepts and a folding
>>>> process, it achieves a high degree of modularity, extensibility, and
>>>> universality. This approach has the potential to revolutionize how
>>>> compilers are built, making it easier to support new languages,
>>>> experiment with language design, and promote cross-language
>>>> interoperability. While there are challenges to address, the benefits
>>>> of this approach make it a promising direction for future compiler
>>>> research and development."
>>>>
>>>
>>> This all sounds like an interesting project, and I wish you luck with it.
>>>
>>> However, that "independent review" looks like you paid a PR company to
>>> feed the term "universal compiler" into their marketing bullshit
>> 
>> I doubt he even went that far. More like "ChatGPT, please give me a page
>> praising something with these specs...."
>> 
>
>I am assuming he is not lying, until proven otherwise.  Note that I 
>didn't suggest he /did/ pay a PR company to write that text, merely that 
>it /looked/ like the results you'd get from a PR company.  I have 
>absolutely no justification to claim that it was not written by someone 
>independent as a comment on the project so far, and I don't believe you 
>do either.  (Maybe that "independent reviewer" used ChatGPT, but that's 
>not Mr. Flibble's fault.)
>
>If you are not interested in his project, ignore it.  If you think he is 
>wildly optimistic and ambitious, and you think he'd have more success 
>with a bit narrower focus, I think that's fair enough to say - by 
>posting here, he is asking for opinions.  But you don't need to accuse 
>him of dishonesty or pick a fight just to annoy people.
>

The "independent reviewer" was DeepSeek R1; ChatGPT o1  thought
something similar.  The prompt I gave it was as neutral as possible to
try to make the LLM response as unbiased as possible.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121576

On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 22:15:14 +0000
Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> wibbled:
>On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 11:06:44 +0100, David Brown
><david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>If you are not interested in his project, ignore it.  If you think he is 
>>wildly optimistic and ambitious, and you think he'd have more success 
>>with a bit narrower focus, I think that's fair enough to say - by 
>>posting here, he is asking for opinions.  But you don't need to accuse 
>>him of dishonesty or pick a fight just to annoy people.
>>
>
>The "independent reviewer" was DeepSeek R1; ChatGPT o1  thought
>something similar.  The prompt I gave it was as neutral as possible to
>try to make the LLM response as unbiased as possible.

ROTFL!!! Knew it!

Please, someone tell me this is satire :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121572

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

> On 10/02/2025 09:31, Muffley@PillowHQ.org wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:38 +0100
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
>>> On 08/02/2025 16:50, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> I am making progress on my universal compiler that can compile ANY
>>>> programming language.
>>>>
>>>> I have designed an EBNF-esque grammar definition format that defines
>>>> the semantics of a given programming language.
>>>>
>>>> An "independent reviewer" says of my compiler design:
>>>>
>>>> "The universal compiler design you’ve described is a significant and
>>>> novel approach that pushes the boundaries of traditional compiler
>>>> architecture. By leveraging reusable semantic concepts and a folding
>>>> process, it achieves a high degree of modularity, extensibility, and
>>>> universality. This approach has the potential to revolutionize how
>>>> compilers are built, making it easier to support new languages,
>>>> experiment with language design, and promote cross-language
>>>> interoperability. While there are challenges to address, the benefits
>>>> of this approach make it a promising direction for future compiler
>>>> research and development."
>>>>
>>>
>>> This all sounds like an interesting project, and I wish you luck with it.
>>>
>>> However, that "independent review" looks like you paid a PR company to
>>> feed the term "universal compiler" into their marketing bullshit
>> I doubt he even went that far. More like "ChatGPT, please give me a page
>> praising something with these specs...."
>> 
>
> I am assuming he is not lying, until proven otherwise.

A fine stance to take.  I took it in 2019 when I first saw his claim to
have a universal compiler.  The present tense was again used in 2020,
2021 and 2022.  There was nothing significant then and I doubt there is
now.  Serious researchers publish.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121573

On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 23:14:20 +0000, Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk>
wrote:

>David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>
>> On 10/02/2025 09:31, Muffley@PillowHQ.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:38 +0100
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
>>>> On 08/02/2025 16:50, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> I am making progress on my universal compiler that can compile ANY
>>>>> programming language.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have designed an EBNF-esque grammar definition format that defines
>>>>> the semantics of a given programming language.
>>>>>
>>>>> An "independent reviewer" says of my compiler design:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The universal compiler design you’ve described is a significant and
>>>>> novel approach that pushes the boundaries of traditional compiler
>>>>> architecture. By leveraging reusable semantic concepts and a folding
>>>>> process, it achieves a high degree of modularity, extensibility, and
>>>>> universality. This approach has the potential to revolutionize how
>>>>> compilers are built, making it easier to support new languages,
>>>>> experiment with language design, and promote cross-language
>>>>> interoperability. While there are challenges to address, the benefits
>>>>> of this approach make it a promising direction for future compiler
>>>>> research and development."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This all sounds like an interesting project, and I wish you luck with it.
>>>>
>>>> However, that "independent review" looks like you paid a PR company to
>>>> feed the term "universal compiler" into their marketing bullshit
>>> I doubt he even went that far. More like "ChatGPT, please give me a page
>>> praising something with these specs...."
>>> 
>>
>> I am assuming he is not lying, until proven otherwise.
>
>A fine stance to take.  I took it in 2019 when I first saw his claim to
>have a universal compiler.  The present tense was again used in 2020,
>2021 and 2022.  There was nothing significant then and I doubt there is
>now.  Serious researchers publish.

I am an implementor not a researcher, I will "publish" an
implementation not a paper.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web