3 ms·

I think we can go further : - every non-trivial software is a compiler - every non-trivial software is a database Every non trivial software have to read/par

by Rexxar 11y ago

I think we can go further : - every non-trivial software is a compiler - every non-trivial software is a database Every non trivial software have to read/parse/manipulate/store a lot of data. I think it ultimately permit to simplify thinks to just admit that we are doing a specialized database/compiler. The fact that input data are coming from file, database, network, command line or the code itself and are going to files, database or network is just an implementation detail.

sklogic 11y ago
> every non-trivial software is a compiler Actually this is even more true than you probably think it is.
pjmorris 11y ago
'Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.' - Greenspun;s tenth rule [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun%27s_tenth_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun%27s_tenth_rule
- Rexxar 11y ago
  The real failure of this law is that, even if you use Common Lisp (or every other language), to implement your software you will finally have an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp implemented in your software. The solution is to design your software as a compiler from the start.
joostdevries 11y ago
It seems you've only read the title of this post. Too bad. It's an interesting talk on the architecture of an ambitious compiler redesign. The title is a simplification for the sake of being a keynote.
- Rexxar 11y ago
  The fact that I find the title inspiring and that we can go further doesn't mean I have not watched the video. Please stop to criticizing people on imaginary facts. There was a lot of interesting comments yesterday on a post called "Presumption of stupidity" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10034883 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10034883). This could also applied to comments: Do not assume the worse you can imagine by default. And yes, it's indeed a very interesting talk.

by Rexxar 11y ago

sklogic 11y ago

> every non-trivial software is a compiler Actually this is even more true than you probably think it is.

pjmorris 11y ago

'Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.' - Greenspun;s tenth rule [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun%27s_tenth_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun%27s_tenth_rule

Rexxar 11y ago
The real failure of this law is that, even if you use Common Lisp (or every other language), to implement your software you will finally have an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp implemented in your software. The solution is to design your software as a compiler from the start.

joostdevries 11y ago

It seems you've only read the title of this post. Too bad. It's an interesting talk on the architecture of an ambitious compiler redesign. The title is a simplification for the sake of being a keynote.

Rexxar 11y ago
The fact that I find the title inspiring and that we can go further doesn't mean I have not watched the video. Please stop to criticizing people on imaginary facts. There was a lot of interesting comments yesterday on a post called "Presumption of stupidity" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10034883 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10034883). This could also applied to comments: Do not assume the worse you can imagine by default. And yes, it's indeed a very interesting talk.