3 ms·

The features I am talking about are very platform-agnostic. The only requirement for implementing them is a compile-time metaprogramming, which is trivial to ad

by sklogic 11y ago

The features I am talking about are very platform-agnostic. The only requirement for implementing them is a compile-time metaprogramming, which is trivial to add to any language, including C. The only explanation for not using this approach is a plain ignorance. Majority of people have no understanding of compilers at all. And yet they are writing compilers. In C or Haskell. And, btw., teams that cannot learn a tiny DSL in an hour (or write this DSL in a week) should not be allowed to write compilers. It's kinda obvious.

coldtea 11y ago
>The only explanation for not using this approach is a plain ignorance. Majority of people have no understanding of compilers at all. And yet they are writing compilers. In C or Haskell. That includes people like Lars Bak, Martin Odersky, Anders Hejlsberg, Simon Peyton Jones, etc? I wonder where the burden of proof should be placed in these kind of arrogant arguments -- as if "compile-time metaprogramming" is some magic bullet for compiler design...
- sklogic 11y ago
  I am glad you did not list anyone related to GCC and LLVM, because both rely on the static DSLs (and code generation) heavily. As for the rest - yes, compiler construction is not their main research topic. They can all be great language designers, but their approach to compiler construction is needlessly overcomplicated. A view of a compiler as a chain of stupidly trivial passes, ideally expressed as term rewriting, is not very common among the researchers, but so far it yields the best results.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >They can all be great language designers, but their approach to compiler construction is needlessly overcomplicated. Actually Lars Bark and team are not "language designers". Smalltalk (Strongtalk), Java (Hotspot), Javascript (V8), all have been designed as languages by other people. They are world reknowed experts in compiler design.
    - sklogic 11y ago
      JIT is a totally different beast from a simple pipeline compiler. You should have known better. Anyway, you evidently do not know what you're talking about. Consider you trolling unless you can show your compiler code.

by sklogic 11y ago

coldtea 11y ago

>The only explanation for not using this approach is a plain ignorance. Majority of people have no understanding of compilers at all. And yet they are writing compilers. In C or Haskell. That includes people like Lars Bak, Martin Odersky, Anders Hejlsberg, Simon Peyton Jones, etc? I wonder where the burden of proof should be placed in these kind of arrogant arguments -- as if "compile-time metaprogramming" is some magic bullet for compiler design...

sklogic 11y ago
I am glad you did not list anyone related to GCC and LLVM, because both rely on the static DSLs (and code generation) heavily. As for the rest - yes, compiler construction is not their main research topic. They can all be great language designers, but their approach to compiler construction is needlessly overcomplicated. A view of a compiler as a chain of stupidly trivial passes, ideally expressed as term rewriting, is not very common among the researchers, but so far it yields the best results.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >They can all be great language designers, but their approach to compiler construction is needlessly overcomplicated. Actually Lars Bark and team are not "language designers". Smalltalk (Strongtalk), Java (Hotspot), Javascript (V8), all have been designed as languages by other people. They are world reknowed experts in compiler design.
  - sklogic 11y ago
    JIT is a totally different beast from a simple pipeline compiler. You should have known better. Anyway, you evidently do not know what you're talking about. Consider you trolling unless you can show your compiler code.