ruby-x/ruby-x.github.io
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

adjusted name

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Torsten Ruger 2015-09-18 11:06:41 +03:00
parent 170873c000
commit 02693e2b95
1 changed files with 6 additions and 6 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

12
_posts/2015-09-03-a-new-language.md
View File

@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ is a tree, not a list, as demonstrated by the parse *tree*. Flattening it just c
problems. Also as a metal model it is easier, as it is easy to imagine swapping out subtrees, problems. Also as a metal model it is easier, as it is easy to imagine swapping out subtrees,
expanding or collapsing nodes etc. expanding or collapsing nodes etc.
## Saml - SalamA Machine Language ## Bosl - Basic Object System Language
### Typed ### Typed
@ -65,12 +65,12 @@ all the time dynamic.
The way i had the implementation figured was to have different versions of the same function. In The way i had the implementation figured was to have different versions of the same function. In
each function we would have compile time types, everything known. I'll probably still do that, each function we would have compile time types, everything known. I'll probably still do that,
just written in saml. just written in bosl.
### Object c ### Object c
The language needs to be object based, off course. Just because it's typed and not dynamic The language needs to be object based, off course. Just because it's typed and not dynamic
and closer to assembler, doesn't mean we need to give up objects. In fact we mustn't. Saml (working and closer to assembler, doesn't mean we need to give up objects. In fact we mustn't. Bosl (working
name) should be a little bit in like c++, ie compile time known variable arrangement and types, name) should be a little bit in like c++, ie compile time known variable arrangement and types,
objects. But no classes (or inheritance), more like structs, with full access to everything. objects. But no classes (or inheritance), more like structs, with full access to everything.
So a struct.variable syntax would mean grab that variable at that address, no functions, no possible So a struct.variable syntax would mean grab that variable at that address, no functions, no possible
@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ That can obviously read itself and anything else, so the start small approach is
Also, when writing the debugger, i found that parslet is not opal compatible and that doesn't seem Also, when writing the debugger, i found that parslet is not opal compatible and that doesn't seem
to be changing. So, casting the net, i found Citrus which is small and clean without *any* runtime to be changing. So, casting the net, i found Citrus which is small and clean without *any* runtime
dependency (a great feat). Citrus has a grammar, and i find at least it looks nicer than the ruby dependency (a great feat). Citrus has a grammar, and i find at least it looks nicer than the ruby
grammar code. So for saml it will probably be that and as small a syntax as i can get away with. grammar code. So for bosl it will probably be that and as small a syntax as i can get away with.
### Interoperability ### Interoperability
@ -138,8 +138,8 @@ So writing a ruby compiler by writing a ruby interpreter would mean
writing the interpreter in c, and (worse) writing the partial evaluator *for* c, not for ruby. writing the interpreter in c, and (worse) writing the partial evaluator *for* c, not for ruby.
Ok, maybe it is not quite as bad as that makes it sound. As i do have the register layer ready Ok, maybe it is not quite as bad as that makes it sound. As i do have the register layer ready
and will be writing a c-ish language, it may even be possible to write an interpreter **in saml**, and will be writing a c-ish language, it may even be possible to write an interpreter **in bosl**,
and then it would be ok to write an evaluator **for saml** too. and then it would be ok to write an evaluator **for bosl** too.
I will nevertheless go the straighter route for now, ie write a compiler, and maybe return to the I will nevertheless go the straighter route for now, ie write a compiler, and maybe return to the
promised freebie later. It does feel like a lot of what the partial evaluator is, would be called promised freebie later. It does feel like a lot of what the partial evaluator is, would be called