Re: Phoenix language

[Gregory Casamento]

All,

As usual people come back with useless comments such as this rather than actual advice.

David, I did ask your advice on which parser generator to use in the beginning.  I call your attention to the private email I sent you months ago.  It would have been nice to hear from you then.  If you had an objection to my using bison it should really have been registered then instead of now. 

Far too often I find that individuals on this project do not give advice and then criticize when it's convenient. 

There is nothing in your comment which is remotely constructive. If you have a suggestion regarding which parser to use then please offer up a suggestion as to which you believe is most appropriate rather than simple saying which ones you believe are not.  

Criticism is easy.  Offering advice is not.  I asked you for your advice before and I'm asking for it now again.  Which parser generator do you believe I should switch to?   The grammar was built by using a scraper derived from the swift2js project which produced the grammar.   It wouldn't be hard to change it to generate a grammar for another parser generator. 

I realize that designing a modern compiler is not a trivial task but it is not one in going to shy away from.  I am ready to "jump into it" as you say. 

GC

On Wednesday, October 22, 2014, David Chisnall <theraven@sucs.org> wrote:

On 22 Oct 2014, at 18:14, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@computer.org> wrote:

>> John Siracusa's review of Yosemite is extensive; for this thread, the embedded extensive overview of Swift is more interesting. I would highly recommend reading pages 21, 22, 23 as an overview of what makes Swift interesting. It sounds like the added step of compiling code into SIL before compiling and optimizing SIL into LLVM IR makes some interesting optimizations possible.
>>   http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/10/os-x-10-10/21/
>>
>> I'd be particularly interested in hearing from Gregory what is the intended pipeline in Phoenix and how it compares to what Swift compiler is doing.
>
> Yes, that would be interesting to learn how the architecture is intended to look like. If it is a pre-compiler (using some other for real binary code generation) or it it is intended to generate bytecode or whatever.

I would also be interested in this.  Looking at the existing code, it looks like a compiler that is based on the state of the art circa 1970 that would need a complete redesign to be comparable to anything vaguely modern.  I appreciate that there's a strong desire for people to leap into this kind of project, but designing a compiler for a modern language is not a trivial task.

David

-- Send from my Jacquard Loom


_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep

-- 
Gregory Casamento
Open Logic Corporation, Principal Consultant
(240)274-9630 (Cell)
http://www.gnustep.org
http://heronsperch.blogspot.com