|Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers email@example.com (1998-07-28)|
|Re: Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (Tony Bass) (1998-07-30)|
|Re: Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers amitp@Theory.Stanford.EDU (Amit Patel) (1998-08-13)|
|Re: Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers email@example.com (Chris F Clark) (1998-08-16)|
|Re: Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (Valentin Bonnard) (1998-08-16)|
|From:||email@example.com (Dwight VandenBerghe)|
|Date:||28 Jul 1998 11:37:21 -0400|
from "Jan Gray" <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>I'm a compiler guy learning SML and have been
>very impressed by its elegance and pragmatism (not to mention its well
>defined formal semantics). I, and perhaps other comp.compilers readers,
>would be very interested if you could elaborate on the particular facilities
>for writing and maintaining compilers you refer to above. Do you mean the
>nice polymorphic type system, the type constructors and pattern matching,
>and functors, etc.? Or something else?
Let's use the term "ML" to mean SML or Objective Caml. I'm a devotee
of Ocaml, but I have SML/NJ installed and although I prefer the
distribution, tools and overall implementation of Ocaml, I'd be
happy to write in SML/NJ if Ocaml wasn't around. (I can't speak
for Haskell, gofer, hugs, or any of the lazy languages. I think
that there are different kinds of people, some of whom like things
like deferred evaluation and other who like strict call-by-value.
I'm decidedly in the latter camp; I like how clean strict evaluation
is, how easy it is to understand exactly what is going on, and I
find that I have to give a little of that up with Haskell. But
your mileage may vary.) So although when I am writing about "ML"
I am writing about Ocaml, what I say also applies, I think, to SML/NJ.
So here is an unordered list of language features that seems to me
to make writing compilers a pleasure rather than a horrendous chore.
1. Garbage collection. It may seem elementary to mention this,
but gc is an incredible boon to programs that have lots of complex
data structures with short-to-intermediate lifetimes. And compilers
are, above all, programs with complex data structures. You gotta
be a data structure junkie to like compilers. Well, C/C++, Pascal,
and their ilk, with unrestricted pointers and malloc and their
cousins, make you take out your own trash. You have to be the
programmer and the janitor, at the same time. Some of us are
better programmers than we are janitors. ML has, perhaps, the
best gc around; it's so fast that for many real apps it's as fast
as the C++ malloc/free, and maybe even a little faster in some
cases. You don't have to wring your hands about using ML's gc,
as you do with Java's, which is slow. It's just there, invisible,
blindingly fast, and it works all the time, and your life is thus
made much easier.
2. Tail recursion is optimized. Thus, once you know how to take
advantage of it, you can write tree walks that don't eat up stack
space, and are very fast. Now, to be fair, there are C++ compilers
(like VisualC++ 5) that supposedly have some tail recursion
eliminated, but you can't count on it (VC has a lot of bugs in
theirs). ML is matched to recursion very well, and since many
of the data structures in compilers tend to be best handled with
recursive procedures, there is a good fit there.
3. The data types in ML match the compiling process. Compilers
don't tend to worry about unsigned shorts vs signed chars,
but use "ints" everywhere, as well as strings. Strings are used
all over the place, and C/C++ are pretty terrible with strings,
even in the presence of templates. There are some places in
compilers where it's nice to have arithmetic on quantities a
little larger than ints, so the "bignum" facility is actually
useful in those cases (like when you have to fold constants
or tokenize with a little more precision than the underlying
numeric types, then convert back to the native form). If you
don't have bignums, then you have to write your own, or resort
to subterfuge. (See guru compiler writer Dave Hanson's "C
Interfaces and Implementations" for an example of what I mean.)
4. The type constructors in ML are just plain wonderful for
describing things like ASTs (abstract syntax trees). They
implement what are sometimes called "tagged unions" - that is,
a union data type (efficient, small) that, unlike with C/C++,
come along with a tag field that tells what's in the union.
This is enforced: in other words, there's no way to circumvent
it. ML pattern matching is designed to work with tagged unions
so that the source code is incredibly readable, for functions
that take a data structure as an argument. Combine this with
type inference and tail recursion elimination, and you have
a language that is optimized for recursive functions that
take complex data structures are arguments ... sound familiar?
5. Safety. ML was conceived as a solution to the main problem
faced by mathematicians using automated theorem provers: that
because of the type-free, dangerous, cavalier nature of the
usual language for that domain (Lisp), you could never be sure
that your program was going to work. Of course, this could
be said about all languages, but ML was an attempt to restrict
the domain a bit, to add efficiency and safety at the same time.
ML programs can't crash the system; if it compiles, it will run,
and you won't get a segmentation fault. You can prove certain
properties about your program, you can trust that certain kinds
of errors just plain can't happen. For example, since lists are
immutable, and must contain elements of a single type, you don't
have to worry about screwing up a string list by putting an
integer in it by accident (as you can with Scheme and Lisp).
In fact, you can't put anything into it at all; you have to
create a new list. This makes the underlying routines able
to be much faster than lists in other languages, where you
have to be concerned about double-links, destructive updating,
and so on. With a blindingly fast GC system, this all works
out just fine ... and you sleep better at night.
6. ML was designed for an application domain (theorem
proving) that is characterized by big, hairy, recursive data
structures that have complex algorithms running against them.
7. Exceptions. ML implements fast and clean exception handling,
which is a real joy if you've never had the pleasure of using them
before. You write a table lookup by assuming that the key will
be found, and then wrapping the search in a "try" block that
catches the exceptional case ("not found"). So you can't ever
screw up your program by forgetting to test the not-found case;
if you do that, the runtime system will stop with an uncaught
exception, telling just where the exception was thrown. Programs
become easier to read, cleaner, more robust, when you learn to
8. Type inference. In a thousand lines of ML you may have to
declare only two or maybe three variables, if that. It just figures
out the types by how the variables are used. And it doesn't guess,
like (say) Perl does. It knows for sure. One of the reasons I
like Ocaml over SML is that Ocaml doesn't like operator overloading:
there are different operators for float addition ("+.") and integer
addition ("+"), for example. Type inference and operator overloading
are uncomfortable bed partners; in my opinion, a language designer
should choose between them, rather than try to serve both masters.
But anything's better than Pascal or C, where the compiler just
tosses out everything it knows about usage and makes you state
the obvious, over and over and over again. All we can do is
screw it up, and so we do, over and over.
9. Lex/yacc/burg. ML has great implementations of these standard
tools, and once you know how to use them, they make a lot of jobs
simpler. No, I'm not a great lex fan, nor do I prefer lalr(1)
over ll(k), but I'm a pragmatist: if it's there, and it's well-
implemented, I'll use it. Ocaml and SML/NJ both have really
good, solid compiler tools implementations that are used by
their developers. Not many languages come with better toolkits.
10. Did I mention that Ocaml is fast? I wrote a compiler for
an actuarial financial modelling language in Ocaml, probably
10K lines of code, that would have been 20K or more in C++,
and it compiles the largest known program in 3 seconds on my
pentium 200. Most programs compile in under 1 second. I find
11. Support. I've gotten better support from Inria (Xavier
Leroy and Pierre Weis, among others) than I ever have from
any other language vendor. There just aren't many problems
with the language, and those few problems I've encountered
have been fixed in a matter of days. Compare this to the
support for, say, VC++ or Turbo Pascal.
12. Library. ML's standard library has a lot of data structure
stuff in it, which helps a lot. I find it more complete and
succinct and usable than the usual glommed-together mess of
most other languages.
13. The module system. ML has strong, well-thought-out support
for separate compilation that allows a separately compiled module
to support polymorphism (that is, it can operate on arbitrary
types). The visibility of the internals of the module can be
exactly controlled. "Functors" can specialize a module into
a specific incarnation. It's pretty cool, like C++ templates
without the pain and suffering.
So it's mostly about data structures. ML is extraordinarily
facile at allowing you to express complex data structures and
recursive algorithms around them. The most basic data structures
(lists, arrays, structs, unions, property lists, hash tables,
binary trees, queues, and so on) are sitting there in the
language already, well-implemented and ready to go. You start
off from a place that you would have had to build up in another
Is ML the perfect language? Lord, no. It has many flaws,
like every other language. The syntax is weird, some parts
of it are hard to learn, some parts are hard to use. A simple
thing like Printf can be quite strange to express. You can't
use ML to advantage for many problem domains (like the one I
work a lot in, embedded systems). It would be terrible to
use for, say, programming an FFT inside a DSP chip. ML
doesn't sit all that well with GUIs yet, as far as I've seen,
and support for OOP is lacking (although I see that as a
feature, not a restriction).
But all languages have some problem domains in which they
shine. I think that compiler implementation is one of those areas
for ML. You're writing a compiler and in middle of a function
you need a 9mm crescent wrench with a box on the other end.
You open up your toolkit and ... there it is, in the top drawer,
bright and shiny and strong. You use it, and then a few minutes
later you need a small phillips screwdriver with a clip and
a magnet ... and there it is, bright and shiny and strong.
It's not that there are an extraordinary number of tools in
the toolbox. (No; in fact, the toolbox is much smaller than
the usual toolboxes, the ones used by your friends that contain
everything but the sink.) It's that the toolbox was carefully
and very thoughtfully assembled by some very bright toolsmiths,
distilling their many decades of experience, and designed, as
all good toolkits are, for a very specific purpose: building
fast, safe and solid programs that are oriented around separate
compilation of functions that primarily do recursive manipulation
of very complex data structures.
Program, like, say ... compilers.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.