Re: Please add these C# compilers to the list of open source compilers

Paolo Molaro <lupus@debian.org>
22 May 2006 02:09:31 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Please add these C# compilers to the list of open source compilers englere.geo@yahoo.com (Eric) (2006-05-15)
Re: Please add these C# compilers to the list of open source compilers lupus@debian.org (Paolo Molaro) (2006-05-16)
Re: Please add these C# compilers to the list of open source compilers englere.geo@yahoo.com (Eric) (2006-05-18)
Re: Please add these C# compilers to the list of open source compilers lupus@debian.org (Paolo Molaro) (2006-05-22)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Paolo Molaro <lupus@debian.org>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 22 May 2006 02:09:31 -0400
Organization: [Infostrada]
References: 06-05-054 06-05-055 06-05-062
Keywords: C#

On 2006-05-19, Eric <englere.geo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Blue (public domain - no restriction):
>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/jmstall/archive/2005/02/06/368192.aspx
>
>>According to the webpage it's quite incomplete, so I'd include it only
>>on a list of toy compilers.
>
> True, but it's pretty good for being 100% public domain. There aren't
> many compilers with a liberal license like that. It's also got a hand
> written recursive descent parser, and that may be interesting to study
> for many who read this forum.


I'd agree, though I'll point out that there are plenty of recursive
descent parser sources on the net to study from. If someone wants to
study a C#-specific parser, he better study one that actually implements
the spec and solves some of the hard issues that arise only when
implementing the full specification, otherwise it is not much more
useful than studying a simple expression parser from a undergrad book.
Maybe someone with a bit of time could try to run the Blue compiler
against the Mono C# compiler test suite and see how many tests it can
compile correctly.


>>> http://www.dotgnu.org/
>
>>The compiler is quite limited, no 2.0 support and a few things missings
>>from 1.x support, too.
>
> A lot of code was written using 1.x, and it's still a reasonable
> platform. This compiler is also interesting because it's written in C,
> not C#. Also, there's an effort underway to write a Java bytecode
> generator for this compiler.


The compiler has been basically unchanged for the last 20 months or so.
The java bytecode generator has never been a real effort: generating
java bytecode from C# code has some of the same complexities as
generating it from C code, hence this is a 'feature' only useful for very
simple tests (if it actually works).


lupus


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
lupus@debian.org debian/rules
lupus@ximian.com Monkeys do it better


Post a followup to this message

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