Related articles |
---|
Interpreter. What is the best way ? nick@nsis.cl.nec.co.jp (1991-11-14) |
Re: Interpreter. What is the best way ? jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (1991-11-14) |
Re: Interpreters (and now, byte code standards) nick@nsis.cl.nec.co.jp (1991-11-15) |
Re: Interpreter. What is the best way ? joshua@veritas.com (1991-11-16) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
From: | nick@nsis.cl.nec.co.jp (Gavin Thomas Nicol) |
Keywords: | interpreter, design |
Organization: | Compilers Central |
Date: | Thu, 14 Nov 91 18:16:59 JST |
I'm not sure if this is a question that really fits here, but I am have
started to write an application extension language, that combines aspects
of C and PASCAL (ie. it should be easy for either kind of programmer to
pick up on, even though it will be a subset.)
This language will be interpreted, and herein lies the question. For
this kind of system, is it better to compile the program into bytecode,
into a parse tree (like gawk), or into tokenised input ? Obviously,
interpreting the sources directly is NOT the quickest way of doing things.
I should also note that I want to be able to include this language into
various applications, and want it to be easily extensible. For example, in
order to register an new function (in the source) I just want to add a
declaraction to a table.
If anyone has any comments, please post to the net, or email me. I will
summarise.
Thanks in advance.
Gavin Nicol (alias "nick" or "nick-san")
NEC Scientific Information System Development Ltd.
R&D KSP Bldg.
100-1 Sakato Takatsu-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa-ken 213,
Japan
Phone : <Japan> (044) 812-8411
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.