Re: Implementation Language Choice

Joachim Durchholz <joachim.durchholz@web.de>
13 Feb 2004 23:55:20 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Implementation Language Choice kevin@albrecht.net (Kevin Albrecht) (2004-02-12)
Re: Implementation Language Choice kenrose@tfb.com (Ken Rose) (2004-02-13)
Re: Implementation Language Choice wienczny@web.de (Stephan Wienczny) (2004-02-13)
Re: Implementation Language Choice basile-news@starynkevitch.net (Basile Starynkevitch \[news\]) (2004-02-13)
Re: Implementation Language Choice joachim.durchholz@web.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2004-02-13)
Re: Implementation Language Choice kevin@albrecht.net (Kevin Albrecht) (2004-02-13)
Re: Implementation Language Choice lex@cc.gatech.edu (Lex Spoon) (2004-02-26)
Re: Implementation Language Choice joachim.durchholz@web.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2004-02-26)
Re: Implementation Language Choice gdr@integrable-solutions.net (Gabriel Dos Reis) (2004-02-27)
Re: Implementation Language Choice joachim.durchholz@web.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2004-03-02)
Re: Implementation Language Choice la@iki.fi (Lauri Alanko) (2004-03-02)
[6 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Joachim Durchholz <joachim.durchholz@web.de>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 13 Feb 2004 23:55:20 -0500
Organization: Oberberg Online Infosysteme
References: 04-02-109
Keywords: design, functional
Posted-Date: 13 Feb 2004 23:55:19 EST

Kevin Albrecht wrote:


> What languages have others found useful as implementation
> languages?


Functional languages have been reported to be exceedingly strong in this
area. You essentially define a few helper functions, then the parser is
a simple transliteration of the grammar rules. (The keywords to google
for are "parsing combinators".)
In particular, it seems to be easy to attach different things to the
parsers (for "things" say prettyprinters, code transformers, compilers,
and whatnot).


The downside is that the approach will produce only recursive-descent
grammars. Good enough if you're free to define the syntax, often
unworkable if the syntax is a given.


> The following features are important to me in a choice for a better
> implementation language:
>
> * mature compiler(s) that produces native-code binaries
> * open source - preferable, but not 100% necessary


Most FPLs will qualify (nowadays).


Regards,
Jo
--
Currently looking for a new job.


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.