7 ms·

A very instructive exercise for anyone who is or intends to be a software developer is to write some sort of interpreter and/or compiler. (As well as a virtual

A very instructive exercise for anyone who is or intends to be a software developer is to write some sort of interpreter and/or compiler. (As well as a virtual machine and/or emulator) Depending on your approach this can take a weekend, a few months, or the rest of your life. For instance, and amusingly enough written in golang, one of the most respected recent books on this topic is `Writing an Interpreter in Go` and its sequel `Writing a Compiler in Go`. https://interpreterbook.com/ https://interpreterbook.com/ and https://compilerbook.com/ https://compilerbook.com/ Both of these books are reasonably short, and have the reader make meaningful progress within a weekend. Going through the motions of actually making your own programming language (or reimplementing an existing one) teaches you a lot of things you wouldn't otherwise expect about how to write general code, how to use existing languages effectively, and how things work under the hood. It's also one of the best ways to really get a practical feel for how to approach unit testing. It's an exercise I'd recommend if you haven't gone through it already. It might make it really click for you why some features that seem like a no brainer and should be in every language aren't, and why some undesirable "features" are so prevalent.

Scarbutt 7y ago
one of the most respected recent books on this topic is `Writing an Interpreter in Go` Is 'recent' the key word here? ;) cause that is a very bold claim to make.
- reificator 7y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21154309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21154309
AdieuToLogic 7y ago
> A very instructive exercise for anyone who is or intends to be a software developer is to write some sort of interpreter and/or compiler. Another exercise, perhaps less demanding in this regard, is to explore using Free Monads[0] to implement an EDSL[1] for a problem domain. Of course, the approachability of this varies based on the person involved. > For instance, and amusingly enough written in golang, one of the most respected recent books on this topic is `Writing an Interpreter in Go` and its sequel `Writing a Compiler in Go`. Queue obligatory reference to "the dragon book": Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools[2] 0 - https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/242795/what-is-the-free-monad-interpreter-pattern https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/2427... 1 - https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-embedded-domain-specific-language https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-embedded-domain-specific-la... 2 - https://suif.stanford.edu/dragonbook/ https://suif.stanford.edu/dragonbook/
- reificator 7y ago
  Yeah I'm definitely not saying anything bad about the Dragon book here. But I know there's a recency bias when people are evaluating tech books, so if there's a good book from the last five years I'll recommend that over a great book from the last 15, just so there's a higher chance of the recommendation actually being used.
  - AdieuToLogic 7y ago
    No worries mate. I mentioned the dragon book by obligation, not in comparison to the works you referenced.
    - andersyr 7y ago
      If anyone is curious about an updated resource, I've found Modern Compiler Design much more approachable than the Dragon Book: Published in 2012, it includes chapters on designing object-oriented, functional, and logical compilers. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781461446989 https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781461446989
      - reificator 7y ago
        Hadn't heard about that one, thanks!
tom_mellior 7y ago
> It might make it really click for you why some features that seem like a no brainer and should be in every language aren't, and why some undesirable "features" are so prevalent. I hate this kind of "I have secret knowledge, why don't you spend T amount of your time on some big project to maybe come to the same secret insights I mean". If you have an opinion on why pattern matching is so complex and undesirable, just come out and say it please. Otherwise I'll just call you out as not really having an argument.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mdpopescu 7y ago
  Ah... in religion we call that "gnosticism". (Not really important, it just struck me as something weird to find in a HN thread.)
- reificator 7y ago
  > I have secret knowledge, why don't you spend T amount of your time on some big project to maybe come to the same secret insights I mean Alternate interpretation, I learned something valuable from doing this thing, perhaps you'd be interested in doing so as well since the book that took months or years to write will do a better job teaching it than I will in a five minute break while typing on HN. It's always impressive when freely sharing knowledge and tips is somehow taken as being insular and exclusive. > If you have an opinion on why pattern matching is so complex and undesirable Where did I say pattern matching is undesirable? It sounds more like you just want a fight here. Remember the HN guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
  - tom_mellior 7y ago
    > It's always impressive when freely sharing knowledge and tips is somehow taken as being insular and exclusive. But you didn't share knowledge. You suggested that you had knowledge that was pertinent to the topic at hand. But you didn't share it. You did share tips for resources where one can learn more, and that's great. But you didn't add something like "... and that's where I learned that pattern matching is undesirable because <technical reason>". > Where did I say pattern matching is undesirable? This whole thread was about you saying that pattern matching was undesirable from the point of view of Go's designers or implementors due to their design goal of simplicity. Then you mentioned those compiler resources. The only reasonable interperetation for me is that you wanted to say that you did indeed know concrete technical reasons why pattern matching in Go would be complicated and therefore undesirable.

Scarbutt 7y ago

one of the most respected recent books on this topic is `Writing an Interpreter in Go` Is 'recent' the key word here? ;) cause that is a very bold claim to make.

reificator 7y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21154309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21154309

AdieuToLogic 7y ago

> A very instructive exercise for anyone who is or intends to be a software developer is to write some sort of interpreter and/or compiler. Another exercise, perhaps less demanding in this regard, is to explore using Free Monads[0] to implement an EDSL[1] for a problem domain. Of course, the approachability of this varies based on the person involved. > For instance, and amusingly enough written in golang, one of the most respected recent books on this topic is `Writing an Interpreter in Go` and its sequel `Writing a Compiler in Go`. Queue obligatory reference to "the dragon book": Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools[2] 0 - https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/242795/what-is-the-free-monad-interpreter-pattern https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/2427... 1 - https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-embedded-domain-specific-language https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-embedded-domain-specific-la... 2 - https://suif.stanford.edu/dragonbook/ https://suif.stanford.edu/dragonbook/

reificator 7y ago
Yeah I'm definitely not saying anything bad about the Dragon book here. But I know there's a recency bias when people are evaluating tech books, so if there's a good book from the last five years I'll recommend that over a great book from the last 15, just so there's a higher chance of the recommendation actually being used.
- AdieuToLogic 7y ago
  No worries mate. I mentioned the dragon book by obligation, not in comparison to the works you referenced.
  - andersyr 7y ago
    If anyone is curious about an updated resource, I've found Modern Compiler Design much more approachable than the Dragon Book: Published in 2012, it includes chapters on designing object-oriented, functional, and logical compilers. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781461446989 https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781461446989
    - reificator 7y ago
      Hadn't heard about that one, thanks!

tom_mellior 7y ago

> It might make it really click for you why some features that seem like a no brainer and should be in every language aren't, and why some undesirable "features" are so prevalent. I hate this kind of "I have secret knowledge, why don't you spend T amount of your time on some big project to maybe come to the same secret insights I mean". If you have an opinion on why pattern matching is so complex and undesirable, just come out and say it please. Otherwise I'll just call you out as not really having an argument.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mdpopescu 7y ago
Ah... in religion we call that "gnosticism". (Not really important, it just struck me as something weird to find in a HN thread.)
reificator 7y ago
> I have secret knowledge, why don't you spend T amount of your time on some big project to maybe come to the same secret insights I mean Alternate interpretation, I learned something valuable from doing this thing, perhaps you'd be interested in doing so as well since the book that took months or years to write will do a better job teaching it than I will in a five minute break while typing on HN. It's always impressive when freely sharing knowledge and tips is somehow taken as being insular and exclusive. > If you have an opinion on why pattern matching is so complex and undesirable Where did I say pattern matching is undesirable? It sounds more like you just want a fight here. Remember the HN guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
- tom_mellior 7y ago
  > It's always impressive when freely sharing knowledge and tips is somehow taken as being insular and exclusive. But you didn't share knowledge. You suggested that you had knowledge that was pertinent to the topic at hand. But you didn't share it. You did share tips for resources where one can learn more, and that's great. But you didn't add something like "... and that's where I learned that pattern matching is undesirable because <technical reason>". > Where did I say pattern matching is undesirable? This whole thread was about you saying that pattern matching was undesirable from the point of view of Go's designers or implementors due to their design goal of simplicity. Then you mentioned those compiler resources. The only reasonable interperetation for me is that you wanted to say that you did indeed know concrete technical reasons why pattern matching in Go would be complicated and therefore undesirable.