Re: Techniques for writing an interpreter

"W. Craig Trader" <ct7@mitre.org> writes:
>>Of course, it could be that we're just tired of learning
>>yet-another-extension-language.


On 15 Mar 1998 15:52:25 -0500, fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) wrote:
>Yes. One reason is that Y-A-E-L is likely to be a much worse language
>than Python or TCL. Often extension languages have needlessly cryptic
>syntax (e.g. procmail), and/or are missing lots of crucial features
>(e.g. the elm filter language).
>
>Put it this way: designing and implementing your own extension
>language would only make sense if you think you can do it better or
>more easily than by using one of the freely available ones. But the
>Python and TCL folks are no fools, and they have been at it for years
>now. What would make you think you can do a better job in a week or
>so than what they've done over many years?


Am I the only one here who thinks Simon might want to do this because
it would be _fun_ and he might _learn_something_? Two great reasons
for doing anything, IMHO.


At least _I_ didn't read anything in his original question indicating
he was going to inflict his efforts on the rest of us.


Regards,
[Well, sure, but I'd still encourage him to learn about the extension
languages that already exist and read the code that implements them
before setting out to create yet another somewhat lumpy wheel. -John]
--

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