Re: HLL design

"DavidM" <>
24 Oct 2006 17:36:58 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[5 earlier articles]
Re: HLL design (Wolfram Fenske) (2006-10-21)
Re: HLL design (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-10-21)
Re: HLL design (fermineutron) (2006-10-21)
Re: HLL design (Daniel C. Wang) (2006-10-24)
Re: HLL design ( (2006-10-24)
Re: HLL design (Bjarke Walling) (2006-10-24)
Re: HLL design (DavidM) (2006-10-24)
Re: HLL design (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-10-26)
Re: HLL design (Bjarke Walling) (2006-10-28)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "DavidM" <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 24 Oct 2006 17:36:58 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 06-10-080
Keywords: design, performance
Posted-Date: 24 Oct 2006 17:36:58 EDT

fermineutron wrote:
> This is somewhat of a theoretical question for the experts here. Most
> of easy to use languages are too slow for any serious computing while
> the languages like C and assembly are somewhat of a pain to use. The
> key issues that i identyfy as pain include but not limited to,
> variable declaration array boundary checking, strict data types
> etc. Most can be solved by using extended variables that carry key
> information about the data in the variable within the variable, for
> example using the 1st byte to designate the data type of a variable,
> int, float double etc. using second byte to designate the number of
> dimensions in the variable lets say its N, then using N 4-byte
> integers to store dimension sizes, and this header is followed by the
> data itself.

You could look into D:

It has arrays of any type which have a built in .length property and a
convenient foreach(..) method to iterate through them. Changing the
size of the array is as simple as:
array.length = array.length + 100;

it has auto types which is basic type-inferencing:
auto x = callSomeFunction();

It has many other features: scope-dependent operations, inner
functions(very useful!), mixins, garbage collection, built-in
associative arrays, delegates, inner classes and more.

You should give it a try.

Post a followup to this message

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