4 ms·

Using a scheme subset seems like cheating almost. The no syntax, s expression languages allow one to avoid the entire lexing, parsing, ast generation aspect of

Using a scheme subset seems like cheating almost. The no syntax, s expression languages allow one to avoid the entire lexing, parsing, ast generation aspect of the endeavor. Tratt has a blog post that expands on the bit about languages implemented in themselves and the consequences: http://tratt.net/laurie/blog/entries/the_bootstrapped_compiler_and_the_damage_done http://tratt.net/laurie/blog/entries/the_bootstrapped_compil...

ihnorton 12y ago
"ML -- a domain-specific language for writing ML compilers." https://twitter.com/samth/status/481759160007004160 https://twitter.com/samth/status/481759160007004160
- pjmlp 12y ago
  ML was created for the LCF theorem prover, not for writing compilers. It is just a nice side effect that functional programming, as well as, logic programming, make it so easy to write compilers.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    Does ML have any logic programming capabilities beyond algebraic pattern matching?
cosmez 12y ago
i don't mind this approach, you can waste an entire day with parsing even for the simplest language, this goes right to the point. "Parsing is mostly a distraction, because we want to study the parts of programming languages that are not parsing" http://cs.brown.edu/courses/cs173/2012/book/Everything__We_Will_Say__About_Parsing.html http://cs.brown.edu/courses/cs173/2012/book/Everything__We_W...
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  Parsing is easy, you can hand write a recursive descent parser for a reasonably sane language in a couple hours. As the joke goes, XML and Lisp are languages for those who are afraid of parsers and syntax. Though I'm not sure I would want to argue this point with Shriram.
pjmlp 12y ago
I don't agree. Niklaus Wirth has bootstrapped all of his languages. I doubt anyone would say Algol W, Pascal, Modula-2 or Oberon(-7) have compiler development specific features.
- sklogic 12y ago
  Actually, I always suspected that the tagged unions support in Pascal was added specifically for compiler development.
sklogic 12y ago
The language used in the article had come to quite an elaborate syntax later in the bootstrap cycle ( http://www.meta-alternative.net/pfdoc.pdf http://www.meta-alternative.net/pfdoc.pdf ). So, yes, it's a cheating: using a Lisp-like language to bootstrap a compiler for a high level language with a complex parser.

ihnorton 12y ago

"ML -- a domain-specific language for writing ML compilers." https://twitter.com/samth/status/481759160007004160 https://twitter.com/samth/status/481759160007004160

pjmlp 12y ago
ML was created for the LCF theorem prover, not for writing compilers. It is just a nice side effect that functional programming, as well as, logic programming, make it so easy to write compilers.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  Does ML have any logic programming capabilities beyond algebraic pattern matching?

cosmez 12y ago

i don't mind this approach, you can waste an entire day with parsing even for the simplest language, this goes right to the point. "Parsing is mostly a distraction, because we want to study the parts of programming languages that are not parsing" http://cs.brown.edu/courses/cs173/2012/book/Everything__We_Will_Say__About_Parsing.html http://cs.brown.edu/courses/cs173/2012/book/Everything__We_W...

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
Parsing is easy, you can hand write a recursive descent parser for a reasonably sane language in a couple hours. As the joke goes, XML and Lisp are languages for those who are afraid of parsers and syntax. Though I'm not sure I would want to argue this point with Shriram.

pjmlp 12y ago

I don't agree. Niklaus Wirth has bootstrapped all of his languages. I doubt anyone would say Algol W, Pascal, Modula-2 or Oberon(-7) have compiler development specific features.

sklogic 12y ago
Actually, I always suspected that the tagged unions support in Pascal was added specifically for compiler development.

sklogic 12y ago

The language used in the article had come to quite an elaborate syntax later in the bootstrap cycle ( http://www.meta-alternative.net/pfdoc.pdf http://www.meta-alternative.net/pfdoc.pdf ). So, yes, it's a cheating: using a Lisp-like language to bootstrap a compiler for a high level language with a complex parser.