Re: Writing A Plain English Compiler

"BartC" <bc@freeuk.com>
Sat, 8 Nov 2014 00:35:20 -0000

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Writing A Plain English Compiler gerry.rzeppa@pobox.com (Gerry Rzeppa) (2014-11-04)
Re: Writing A Plain English Compiler Pidgeot18@verizon.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Joshua_Cranmer_=f0=9f=90=a7?=) (2014-11-05)
Re: Writing A Plain English Compiler gerry.rzeppa@pobox.com (Gerry Rzeppa) (2014-11-06)
Re: Writing A Plain English Compiler bcas@freeuk.com (BartC) (2014-11-07)
Re: Writing A Plain English Compiler bcas@freeuk.com (BartC) (2014-11-07)
Re: Writing A Plain English Compiler gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2014-11-07)
Re: Writing A Plain English Compiler bc@freeuk.com (BartC) (2014-11-08)
Re: Writing A Plain English Compiler Pidgeot18@verizon.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Joshua_Cranmer_=f0=9f=90=a7?=) (2014-11-07)
Re: Writing A Plain English Compiler gerry.rzeppa@pobox.com (Gerry Rzeppa) (2014-11-08)
Re: Writing A Plain English Compiler gerry.rzeppa@pobox.com (Gerry Rzeppa) (2014-11-08)
Re: Writing A Plain English Compiler portempa@aon.at (Richard Hable) (2014-11-08)
Re: Writing A Plain English Compiler Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid (=?UTF-8?Q?Joshua_Cranmer_=f0=9f=90=a7?=) (2014-11-08)
Re: Writing A Plain English Compiler bc@freeuk.com (BartC) (2014-11-09)
[4 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 00:35:20 -0000
Organization: virginmedia.com
References: 14-11-004 14-11-008
Keywords: design, syntax
Posted-Date: 08 Nov 2014 00:09:29 EST

"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


Post a followup to this message

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