undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdaeken16y ago0 comments

1. Any compiler that supports cross-compilation supports a software FP implementation. GCC, MSVC (CL, that is), and many others. You take a speed hit, but it's downright negligible in a compiler.

2. Having never used OCaml for compiler dev, I can't speak on this.

3. The lack of strong typing has no effect on the ability of Python or Ruby to handle compilation. Like the Lisp family, these are very, very flexible languages with strong benefits to compiler developers, and I wouldn't trade them for anything else I've used.

TBH, I think ML-based languages are poor choices for compiler development. You spend as much time worrying about your own code as you do the code you're compiling, which you just don't do when you write a compiler in Scheme, Ruby, or another 'dynamic' language.

0 pointsdaeken16y ago0 comments

1. Any compiler that supports cross-compilation supports a software FP implementation. GCC, MSVC (CL, that is), and many others. You take a speed hit, but it's downright negligible in a compiler.

2. Having never used OCaml for compiler dev, I can't speak on this.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

ilkhd216y ago· 2 in thread

1. No not any. Many cross-compilers do not if the binary formats and pecularities of arithmetic operations maps well between host system and target system - why waste time? Example = x86 and x64, two different platforms, with same binary representation. About performance - not sure if it is negligible - optimisation takes a lot of time in moder compilers. 3. You have not seen ml code I am sure. ML has type inference, you are not bothered about types too much. And it has pattern matching, very good when traversing trees. Neither scheme nor pyruby has this. ML also a language with completely formalized semantics, in combination with strong type it allows you to prove that you compiler is correct by means of formal provers.

daekenOP16y ago

I've done quite a lot with the ML family, just not OCaml specifically. Type inference helps, but being able to use an Sexp-style representation a-la lisp is a huge, huge benefit in compilation. You cannot do this in any of the ML family.

Pattern matching is a great feature, and it's available in all of the languages I mentioned. It's a built-in in Boo, there are many libraries for it in Scheme, and I have my own Sexp pattern matching libraries for Python and Ruby. It may have come from the ML world, but it's by no means exclusive to it.

As for proving correctness, depending on the language to provide this is simply not realistic in compilers. You've got a much better shot at correctness by making your compiler easier to work on, IMO.

ilkhd216y ago

There many attempts to get proofs for compilers for popular languages, C or Ada for example: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1315602 http://pauillac.inria.fr/~xleroy/publi/compiler-certif.pdf

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse