|XinMiniX systems such as Squeak and Scheme48? firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Feldt) (2001-02-04)|
|Re: XinMiniX systems such as Squeak and Scheme48? email@example.com (Ira D. Baxter) (2001-02-12)|
|From:||"Ira D. Baxter" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||12 Feb 2001 01:11:20 -0500|
|Organization:||Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com|
|Posted-Date:||12 Feb 2001 01:11:19 EST|
I'm not quite sure we quite qualify yet, but I'll tell you about it anyway.
Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit is generalized compiler
technology used to automate customized analyses/modification/generation
of software sources.
Because DMS has to process very large sources (millions of lines,
thousands of files) it needs all the computational horsepower it can
get to keep analysis turnaround time to a minimum. We chose to
implement it in a parallel language of our own design, PARLANSE, to
make the power of cheap SMP available to DMS. As an example, DMS
generates parallel attribute evaluators from attribute grammar
specifications; the (partial order) parallelism is extracted by doing
data flow analyses on the attribute computations in each rule.
Now of course, we had to build a compiler for DMS. Our first version
is an ad-hoc one built in C; gotta have PARLANSE to build DMS. But we
are starting the construction of the second one using DMS itself,
because DMS provides (well, we think so) so much useful
infrastructure. In fact, that makes DMS a kind of "virtual machine"
in the sense you seem to be inquiring about.
I don't think that languages implemented in a subset of themselves is
particularly interesting. I do think the question of what facilities
are required for general purpose compilation is a much more
"Robert Feldt" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> I wonder if you know of any VM's/compilers for programming languages that
> have been implemented in a subset of themselves like Squeak
> (www.squeak.org) or Scheme48?
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.