Re: Re: What attributes of a programming language simplify its implementation? RPN?

"" <>
Wed, 16 Nov 2022 05:39:00 -0800 (PST)

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "" <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 05:39:00 -0800 (PST)
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 22-09-026 22-10-025 <29190_1668508275_63736A72_29190_327_1_22-11-007@comp.compilers> 22-11-009 22-11-013 22-11-015 22-11-017
Injection-Info:; posting-host=""; logging-data="55741"; mail-complaints-to=""
Keywords: history, design
Posted-Date: 16 Nov 2022 10:59:15 EST
In-Reply-To: 22-11-017 schrieb am Mittwoch, 16. November 2022 um 14:16:47 UTC+1:
> So the capability in a (meta)language for compile-time execution comes into play.
> Forth is only one example. TCL would be my next candidate. I don't know Seed7
> but its author claims to be able to e.g. redefine and create new operators which
> means new semantics.
> [There was a vogue in the 1970s for extensible languages like EL1 at Harvard
> and IMP72 at Yale. You could add new grammar rules on the fly. What that
> meant was that no two programs were written in the same language and they were
> unreadable and often undebuggable. OOP, which lets you add new types and
> semantics without changing the syntax, turned out to be a lot more useful.
> See -John]

A more important aspect of 'usefulness' is the available ecosystem. Experimental
and toy compilers can be useful for individuals, perhaps (very) small teams. This
stops when you have to run a business responsibly, including documentation,
production, maintenance and what you have.

OTOH a good DSL built within and managed by the existing ecosystem can give you
a competitive edge.

Post a followup to this message

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