Re: stack languages, was Supporting multiple input syntaxes

On Monday, August 24, 2020 at 10:42:33 AM UTC-5, luser droog wrote:
> > [Why Postscript? I realize it's Turing complete, but it seems odd to run ones parser on a printer. -John]
>
> I discovered PostScript around '97 or '98. I was taking Computer Graphics
> and it was in an Appendix to the textbook (Salman). At the same time
> I was editor of the Honors College student magazine so it really piqued
> my interest as a graphics and typography language. ...


> [Take a look at Forth. Many of the same advantages, runs a lot more places. -John]


Good suggestion. I have looked at Forth quite a bit. I lurked in
comp.lang.forth for a number of years. I've got a half-written
interpreter that stalled because my vm doesn't have any I/O.


https://groups.google.com/d/topic/comp.lang.forth/Y1XlX8wD3RQ/discussion
https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/6610/how-to-do-i-o-with-emulation-code


I went down a wild rabbit hole after discovering the document "X86 is an
octal machine" and tried to recode the assembler macros using more octal.
But I kind of stalled on that whole area since the first thing I would
want in Forth is tagged objects like PostScript has. There's Oforth and
8th which both supply that sort of thing, but then I'd probably miss
the PS graphics functions.,,. :)


I've also played with APL and tried writing a few interpreters for it.
But the common thread among all these interpreters was coding them all
in C. So I turned my attention to compiling and analyzing C code.
A friend of mine was wanting a really customizable C formatter so I
thought I might be able to make a tool to accommodate lots of different
backends for doing something with the parse tree or syntax tree.
I want to be able to write C99 code and transpile it automatically to
something that will work with the MS compiler without having to maintain
any MS business in the "master" source.

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