1. Compiler Source Code
I downloaded the source code for Microsoft's C#
compiler/linker/assembler/tools/ etc.. (120+MB) but worth it as it is a
very useful resource on how to write compilers. Its nearly all in C++.
There is enough information here to write a native Euphoria.NET compiler!
And that would run on Windows/Linux/OS X/FreeBSD platforms.
---------------
cheers,
Derek Parnell
2. Re: Compiler Source Code
"An native Euphoria.NET compiler"?
I am wondering if this will be consistent with people's conception of =
Euphoria? Will investing a lot effort in that direction pay off? If =
Euphoria has any philosophy it must be that simpler is better.
I would have moved in another direction, making Euphoria simpler than it =
is today. I remember FORTH many years ago. It was internally the =
simplest possible interpreter solution.... but it ourperformed Basic by =
50:1 (as far as I can remember). A FORTH program is almost compiled ... =
using a small kernel to read the functions calls. Euphoria have to parse =
source once (I suppose). Today there is it no need for making user see =
the FORTH syntax. The language can be any syntax (?), like Euphoria .... =
some simple translation.
The real value of simplicity is that then everyone can contribute, and =
just eyeballing code becomes good verification. Unluckily that does not =
seem to be the case for Eu/Peu core?
Euphoria need an up to date IDE/debugger for sure.
Rom
3. Re: Compiler Source Code
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 03:42:05 +0000, Ray Smith <smithr at ix.net.au> wrote:
>
> Is the source included in the .net framework?
> I downloaded that last night but haven't installed it yet as it suggested
> I update my MDAC to 2.7 and install MS Internet Information Services.
No, its a seperate download. Also from MSDN. Its the Shared Source area.
> I never realised that the C# command line compiler came with the .net
> framework
> for free. I have been given 2 and a bit weeks to learn C# and Visual
> Studio.NET!
> Just at a guess I think I'm in a bit of trouble!
Not at all. If you have used a 'c' like language the learning curve is not
steep.
> First impressions seem to indicate C# is a much simplier beast to tame
> than C++ ... maybe Microsoft have seen Euphoria and want to compete
> with the simple syntax and small learning curve of Euphoria! :)
I would certainly recommend C# over C++ anyday. I really think that the MS
people have take some advice this time. However the whole ".NET" thing
might not be as well thought through.
Also it so unJava like in may ways, except it can be a bit verbose .
--------
Derek.
4. Re: Compiler Source Code
On Thursday 21 November 2002 09:50 pm, Rom wrote:
> The real value of simplicity is that then everyone can contribute, and just
> eyeballing code becomes good verification. Unluckily that does not seem to
> be the case for Eu/Peu core?
True - although Peu could be made understandable if it were thoroughly
commented. However, there are some really basic design flaws in Eu/Peu that
should be addressed first.
> Euphoria need an up to date IDE/debugger for sure.
It does, but it isn't likely to happen.
A GUI debugger shouldn't be too hard to write, the one which comes with wxLua
is 1764 lines of code, and it implements a syntax-highlighting editor,
breakpoints, watches, etc. nicely.
The reason Euphoria won't have one is because Rob doesn't see the need for
such "new-fangled" things, and no one else is able to hook to the necessary
Euphoria internals.
Sorry.
Irv
