|Ignorance Showing... firstname.lastname@example.org (Scott Wyatt) (2006-02-24)|
|From:||Scott Wyatt <email@example.com>|
|Date:||24 Feb 2006 18:01:52 -0500|
|Posted-Date:||24 Feb 2006 18:01:52 EST|
I'll admit right up front that I'm just now starting to play with CC
tools and reading various theories / positions within the field. My
actual interest is because I'm a researcher in language acquisition and
I keep finding myself comparing how I learned to program over the years
with how other written forms of expression are learned.
So, I admit, I am not in the Comp Sci department...
Okay, here are the questions:
If a "compiler" works by creating source code in an intermediary
language, is it still a compiler? Because I want code to be portable,
should I create gcc-compatible C/C++ which is then compiled?
Is there a better approach? Should a compiler bootstrap from gcc, but
then be a standalone compiler?
I know this is an issue for debate, but I can see reasons for a large
core grammar if I want an easy-to-learn language that won't vary based
on external libraries / frameworks. At the same time, I can see the idea
of having various libraries which are standardized, thereby allowing for
a smaller executable based on project demands.
Does the core grammar matter if standard libraries are created at the
same time? I'm thinking of how I work in Delphi/FPC versus my
(frustrating) attempt to play with REALbasic. Delphi lets me add only
what I need, while RB "is" its framework.
I happen to like Objective-C, but it really is nothing until you add the
Cocoa framework and whatever "bundles" you want for various
functionality. Because there are standard bundles (HID.bundle, for
example, handles input devices), they are almost like part of the
"language" when people talk about programming on the Mac.
As I said... showing my grotesque ignorance...
1) Can/should a "compiler" create gcc code?
2) How "large" should the core grammar be if the goal is an
"easy-to-learn" coding language? Leave it to libraries / frameworks?
[Lots of compilers generate C as intermediate code, including several
early C++ compilers. As far as syntax vs. libraries, I don't think
there's any received wisdom on that, but there are a lot of opinions.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.