3 ms·

Okay, if you literally have all the semantics of C, your idea works. But if you have ALL the semantics of C, why bother changing the syntax? As for ML and com

by marvy 12y ago

Okay, if you literally have all the semantics of C, your idea works. But if you have ALL the semantics of C, why bother changing the syntax? As for ML and company being a better choice than C++ for writing a compiler... There may well be convincing arguments for this position, and if I asked you, no doubt you'd give me some. But I'll ask something else instead. Most compilers I heard of are written in C or C++. Name me a compiler written in ML/Haskell/Lisp. There's just one rule: no bootstrapping. Meaning that if you show me a compiler for ML written in Haskell, that's fine, but a Lisp compiler written in Lisp is not.

loup-vaillant 12y ago
> But if you have ALL the semantics of C, why bother changing the syntax? Two reasons: first, change what sucks (like the useless clutter with braces and semicolons, or the switches that fall through by default). Second, add more features on top of what we have. As much as I hate C++, we do live in a C dominated world, and C is… limited. The lack of a usable generics system is crippling. C++'s destructors really help with semi-automatic clean up. And it would be good to have a module system, and maybe built-in support for algebraic data types. (I must not overdo it: if I end up turning C into ML, I should use ML. Or Rust.) > if I asked you, no doubt you'd give me some. I'll give you one: Algebraic data types, which are virtually unmatched at representing abstract syntax trees, and basically any intermediate representation a compiler can come up with. Other arguments here: http://flint.cs.yale.edu/cs421/case-for-ml.html http://flint.cs.yale.edu/cs421/case-for-ml.html > There's just one rule: no bootstrapping. Of the top of my head, I don't recall any compiler that doesn't bootstrap. In any case, I fully expect that most compilers are indeed written in C and C++, not in ML or Haskell: C and C++ are that popular. I also happen to think our industry as a whole is mostly nuts, retarded, and short-sighted.
- marvy 12y ago
  You may well be right about that last part. But still, perhaps one day someone will write a C compiler in ML in record time and get people's attention.

by marvy 12y ago

loup-vaillant 12y ago

> But if you have ALL the semantics of C, why bother changing the syntax? Two reasons: first, change what sucks (like the useless clutter with braces and semicolons, or the switches that fall through by default). Second, add more features on top of what we have. As much as I hate C++, we do live in a C dominated world, and C is… limited. The lack of a usable generics system is crippling. C++'s destructors really help with semi-automatic clean up. And it would be good to have a module system, and maybe built-in support for algebraic data types. (I must not overdo it: if I end up turning C into ML, I should use ML. Or Rust.) > if I asked you, no doubt you'd give me some. I'll give you one: Algebraic data types, which are virtually unmatched at representing abstract syntax trees, and basically any intermediate representation a compiler can come up with. Other arguments here: http://flint.cs.yale.edu/cs421/case-for-ml.html http://flint.cs.yale.edu/cs421/case-for-ml.html > There's just one rule: no bootstrapping. Of the top of my head, I don't recall any compiler that doesn't bootstrap. In any case, I fully expect that most compilers are indeed written in C and C++, not in ML or Haskell: C and C++ are that popular. I also happen to think our industry as a whole is mostly nuts, retarded, and short-sighted.

marvy 12y ago
You may well be right about that last part. But still, perhaps one day someone will write a C compiler in ML in record time and get people's attention.