Re: Writing A Plain English Compiler

"BartC" <bcas@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:14-11-008@comp.compilers...


> (I assume this syntax would just be a front-end to a conventional language
> and conventional compiler, as your list suggests, and is not some
> super-advanced AI project that can understand anything.)
>
> Using syntax that looks like written English sounds attractive, and might be
> suitable for some kinds of command-line interaction ('kill dwarf with axe'),
> but I'm not sure it would be taken seriously for real programming.
>
> Maybe, a tool can be used to translate conventional syntax into the English
> style you propose, which would be fun, but I don't know if it warrants
> creating a whole new language. Not if it doesn't otherwise do anything new.
>


> [Back in the 1970s there was a vogue for extensible languages, in
> which you could add new syntax on the fly, by adding new BNF to the
> underlying grammar. They all disappeared, because what happened was
> that no two programs were written in the same langauge and nobody
> could read them. Now we have OOP, where the syntax doesn't change,
> but you can add lots of new types and semantics to go with them.
> -John]


They haven't all disappeared; there is still Seed7 (sometimes appearing in
this group).


Although this language supposedly has a user-extensible syntax, I've
never seen source examples that look like anything other than Seed7,
so perhaps my worry that everyone will invent a different look isn't
justified. (Or maybe I just haven't seen fully customised versions of
it; or haven't recognised them!)


With OOP, I don't really agree with 'language building' features being
used for everyday coding, at least not to the extent they are
available in C++ for example. It makes everything a lot more
complicated (language and compiler), and I think encourages people to
use them unnecessarily.


My point of view is a little unusual however, because I use my own
compilers, so adding a new, fully overloaded type for example, is
easily done by changing something in the compiler; that means the
ability to do that directly in the language is not a priority.


Maybe there is a need to do these things in an easier manner, but
without going so far as allowing a free-for-all as some languages do.


--
Bartc

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