1. There was a lot surprising throughout this whole process. For a while I didn't think it could be done. That it could be done was surprising in itself. That u

1. There was a lot surprising throughout this whole process. For a while I didn't think it could be done. That it could be done was surprising in itself. That using trains actually improved my life was also surprising. There are some "research class" algorithms that I have published as a result of this work, so, there are some new idioms and algorithms that came out of this work. Additionally, this whole compiler is essentially a new treatise on the construction of compilers in general, providing a set of idiomatic methods for accomplishing tasks that would have been traditionally accomplished with other algorithms more commonly taught (such as the way you would normally do a depth-first tree traversal vs. the use of a path matrix to compute parent-child relationships and using key to transform the tree). Some compiler passes turned out to be really surprisingly easy, such as function inlining, which is a recent addition not shown here. After being familiar with this code, it took very little time to explore, write, and implement. Certain things that are multi-part algorithms in other languages turn out to be a single, well-known APL primitive, such as Key (for tree transformation) or Tally for AST/tree "count". 2. It depends on how you write your compiler and what your core abstraction level is. The compiler design here is language agnostic, and you could implement a compiler for any dynamically typed, lexically scoped programming language using this compiler as a template. Adding a type-checker on top would not be difficult, but I haven't established what I consider to be "idiomatic" type-checking algorithms yet, though I did have a version of type inference that was okay that was only recently removed. However, chasing concision or using micro-level tricks without understanding the macro-level issues being addressed by the micro-level tricks will probably lead to unreadable code. The main point here of the compiler design is the importance of prioritize the macro level thinking and optimizing the micro-level to support better macro-level reasoning. How you can apply this to your own compilers depends on how much you're willing to alter the core "aesthetic/HCI philosophy" of your code base. 3. It would be almost trivial to do so, and would have probably zero pedagogical value in the way you're thinking. To do so you would change the "gc" function to spit out Scheme instead of C code, which would be trivial, and it would require changing a bit of the syntax of the outputted code on the following pages. If you wanted to reimplement the runtime as a Scheme library, that could also be done. You'd lose parallelism, of course. The C code and the Scheme code would probably be equivalently clear. The reason it wouldn't be much use, is because there would be nothing idiomatic about the Scheme code upon which you could "rest your hat." Reading APL written with S-expressions rather than APL notation is harder, not easier. It looks no more intuitive to a Scheme (I was a Scheme programmer before this [see R7RS Small]) programmer than the APL. Keep in mind that the core compiler is literally just a huge string of function calls. It's literally nothing but function composition. (2=+⌿0=X∘.|X)/X←⍳20 vs. (let ([X (apl-iota 20)]) (apl-filter X (apl-equal 2 (apl-reduce 1 apl-plus (apl-equal 0 (apl-outer-product apl-modulus X X)))))) Now, if you're really familiar with Scheme, then the terms iota, filter, and reduce should suddenly pop out at you, but that's dangerous, because Scheme's implementation of these don't at all behave the way APL's does, though they are in the same general algorithmic family. So, this might help your study for about 1 hour, before you had memorized all the most common operators for which Scheme has a similar primitive that kind of does something a little like it. However, we just about covered all of them in the above code. Given the above code, what does it do? Was the Scheme significantly easier to understand? Now what if you had 90 such lines? The benefit of such translation starts to die out about after the first line of APL code that you read.