Re: What's lacking: a good intermediate form

On 28 Feb, 17:23, "Tony" <t...@my.net> wrote:


...


> I just realized that this is comp.compilers. (Maybe I should post in
> comp.lang.misc, something similar to my OP).


Yes, you could try that. The folk there are in a similar position to
you in terms of design and have written compilers for their languages.


> I, for anyone who hasn't yet noticed, am interested in NOT writing a
> compiler but rather developing my language concepts. (That of course
> is the major goal, but I DO actually want to write the frontend of
> the compiler for my language).


There's little choice than to write a frontend for a new language.


> That said, I think assuming that everyone wants to do the
> end-to-end, from source code to machine code thing, happens to
> much. I think a course on language design would be better first than
> a course on compiler implementation. Indeed, some people couldn't
> care less about one or the other.


Few people design languages but for those that do design does come
logically before compiler writing. That said, the design will likely
be influenced by the practicality of compiling certain features.


> The LLVM project seems to be hampered by the lofty goal of being
> able to compile every beastly-to-implement language out there (or at
> least the most beastly one: C++). Yes? Perhaps they are the ones who
> like doing the compiler implementation thing and couldn't care less
> about language design whereas I am more of the opposite.


Rather than just principles which are too vague for discussion you
could try posting some specifics of your design on comp.lang.misc and
ask for comments on not just the design but on compiling.


James

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