|Compiler Construction - New to it and getting started. NatLWalker@gmail.com (Nate the Capricious) (2005-02-11)|
|Re: Compiler Construction - New to it and getting started. email@example.com (2005-02-12)|
|Re: Compiler Construction - New to it and getting started. firstname.lastname@example.org (2005-02-16)|
|Re: Compiler Construction - New to it and getting started. email@example.com (TOUATI Sid) (2005-02-28)|
|Re: Compiler Construction - New to it and getting started. firstname.lastname@example.org (2005-02-28)|
|Re: Compiler Construction - New to it and getting started. email@example.com (TOUATI Sid) (2005-03-01)|
|Date:||16 Feb 2005 20:49:55 -0500|
|Organization:||Department of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen|
|Posted-Date:||16 Feb 2005 20:49:54 EST|
"Nate the Capricious" <NatLWalker@gmail.com> writes:
> I want to start doing some research on compiler construction and was
> wondering what programming language you guys use or would like to use
> to implement a compiler. I know a bit of C/C++ and 'a little' Pascal
> but was reading and it seems Modula-2 and Objective CaML get alot of
> thumbs up in this department.
Of the languages you mention, I would definitely go with O'CaML. The
- The datatypes in O'CaML are almost ideal for representing syntax
trees: You get pattern matching, simple building of trees, GC, etc.
- The fact that datastructures are by default persistent makes symbol
tables easy to handle. And you can use references to make
non-persistent data structures when you need them.
- Higher-order functions makes inherited attributes easy.
In general, you will get a much more compact and easily maintainable
compiler using O'CaML than you would with, say, C or C++. And that is
very useful if you want to experiment with variants of the compiler.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.