4 ms·

Whenever someone is applying the "vertical" approach to build a compiler, it looks really awesome to me. Helps to see the big picture right away -- it's much ea

Whenever someone is applying the "vertical" approach to build a compiler, it looks really awesome to me. Helps to see the big picture right away -- it's much easier to pick up finer details if I understand a topic in general first. Also, seeing a project working -- even if the majority of functionality is missing -- and growing piece by piece works much better to keep me motivated. So, when I was starting to work on my own toy compiler, I was totally going to go with the vertical approach... Well, I quickly realized it didn't work for me for writing my first ever compiler. You see, when you go vertical you have to learn a little about every layer of a compiler with every language feature you add: a bit of lexing, a bit of parsing, a bit of semantic analysis, a bit of assembly generation. Basically, you have to constantly switch context between the layers. And I personally found it much easier to learn about managing stack, calling conventions and translating expressions into assembly in one go without switching context away from the code generation layer. In contrast, layers of compilers tend to be rather loosely coupled, so you don't have to think about parsing at all while working on semantic analysis. But if I ever set out to write a second compiler, I'll try to go vertical again. Now, that I have more or less clear idea of how to build each layer, it feels I can build them adding slice by slice. What helps is I can keep a picture of the end result in mind when adding each piece.

dgb23 5y ago
> In contrast, layers of compilers tend to be rather loosely coupled, so you don't have to think about parsing at all while working on semantic analysis. I agree, this is a illustrative example of data coupling: Very loose, easily observable and there are even nice visualization techniques for certain steps. Each can be understood and tested in isolation. Also how vertical is the "vertical" approach really? In a first iteration you ought to lay the foundation of each component. Later you just add additional branches/structures so to speak. This is fine, but I think there is a minimal sub-language that you want to implement on the first iteration, that is sufficiently small to not to get lost in the more hairy details, but large enough so it presses you to find a 'workable flexibility' for each of the components.
- p4bl0 5y ago
  > Also how vertical is the "vertical" approach really? It can be quite vertical, really. Like starting with a compiler for a language where the only correct programs consists of a single integer. This is what I do with my students to get them started on their compiler project. Of course you may have to rethink and rewrite or adapt some code depending of the order in which you're adding features and how they interact, but that will be true anyway if your language evolve :).
p4bl0 5y ago
This is a valid point. I'm teaching a compilation class to undergrad computer science student, so we actually first learn each "horizontal" step separately and work on them during lab session, and then for their project I strongly recommend that they take the "vertical" approach, because it is systematically what gives the best results. In a sense, even if my student's project is their first compiler, they already saw and did exercise on each compiling step individually, a bit like you said.

dgb23 5y ago

> In contrast, layers of compilers tend to be rather loosely coupled, so you don't have to think about parsing at all while working on semantic analysis. I agree, this is a illustrative example of data coupling: Very loose, easily observable and there are even nice visualization techniques for certain steps. Each can be understood and tested in isolation. Also how vertical is the "vertical" approach really? In a first iteration you ought to lay the foundation of each component. Later you just add additional branches/structures so to speak. This is fine, but I think there is a minimal sub-language that you want to implement on the first iteration, that is sufficiently small to not to get lost in the more hairy details, but large enough so it presses you to find a 'workable flexibility' for each of the components.

p4bl0 5y ago
> Also how vertical is the "vertical" approach really? It can be quite vertical, really. Like starting with a compiler for a language where the only correct programs consists of a single integer. This is what I do with my students to get them started on their compiler project. Of course you may have to rethink and rewrite or adapt some code depending of the order in which you're adding features and how they interact, but that will be true anyway if your language evolve :).

p4bl0 5y ago

This is a valid point. I'm teaching a compilation class to undergrad computer science student, so we actually first learn each "horizontal" step separately and work on them during lab session, and then for their project I strongly recommend that they take the "vertical" approach, because it is systematically what gives the best results. In a sense, even if my student's project is their first compiler, they already saw and did exercise on each compiling step individually, a bit like you said.