|
flakeloaf posted:kids today never make time for smalltalk
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
flakeloaf posted:kids today never make time for smalltalk
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
java doesn't force me to declare a function that is in the same file if I use it before it's defined. it's time c[++] compilers caught up to this amazing 1995-era technology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
The Management posted:java doesn't force me to declare a function that is in the same file if I use it before it's defined. it's time c[++] compilers caught up to this amazing 1995-era technology. And F# lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
c/++ are supposed to compile down to asm in a very direct manner. if you want higher level functionality, you need to look elsewhere
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Silver Alicorn posted:c/++ are supposed to compile down to asm in a very direct manner. if you want higher level functionality, you need to look elsewhere lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Silver Alicorn posted:c/++ are supposed to compile down to asm in a very direct manner. if you want higher level functionality, you need to look elsewhere I don't need to declare my labels in assembly before branching to them either
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
*reparses the same header for the 22,452nd time*
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
gonadic io posted:F# lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Spatial posted:*reparses the same header for the 22,452nd time* *writes the same header inclusion guard boilerplate for the 1,000th time*
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
on the other hand, Ive been stuck with gcc for the last month and I forgot how bad it is. clang is so good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
again, totally not the use case for C (operating systems, low level programs and embedded code too big for assembly) use java or Visual Basic or whateverthefuck
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
the F# compiler is exactly one G♭
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
c shouldn't be improved because it's not intended to be good - a moron
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
that’s the kind of thinking that gets you systems so bloated they can’t even run on a calculator
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
Silver Alicorn posted:that’s the kind of thinking that gets you systems so bloated they can’t even run on a calculator a modern hand calculator has an arm chip and gobs of ram you could run java just fine if you wanted to
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Silver Alicorn posted:again, totally not the use case for C (operating systems, low level programs and embedded code too big for assembly) my job is writing low level embedded code. I use c. declaring and maintaining static function declarations is a waste of my loving time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Silver Alicorn posted:again, totally not the use case for C (operating systems, low level programs and embedded code too big for assembly) It's nothing to do with that, it's because single pass compilers were important in like 1970 because their computers were slow and had the memory of a modern microwave. Theres no real excuse for it in 2017 and it would have no effect on what actual code is generated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
yeah but then I won’t be able to run it on my Atari 800XL
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
insert compiler disk 1 *whiiirrrrr* insert compiler disk 2 *whiiirrrrr* insert linker disk 1 *whiiirrrrr* Silver Alicorn posted:this has gone far enough!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
The Management posted:my job is writing low level embedded code. I use c. declaring and maintaining static function declarations is a waste of my loving time. write a script that slurps them into a header file that you include lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Powaqoatse posted:write a script that slurps them into a header file that you include lol Otherwise known as the golang approach to good language usability
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Powaqoatse posted:write a script that slurps them into a header file that you include lol now I have two problems
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
The Management posted:now I have two problems yes but the more arcane you can make the build system, the safer your job is!!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:the F# compiler is exactly one G♭
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
every so often I think it might be fun to write a toy Pascal compiler that targets LLVM
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
like basically follow Wirth’s classic Compiler Construction but tweak it for classic Pascal and wire it up to LLVM
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
The Management posted:on the other hand, Ive been stuck with gcc for the last month and I forgot how bad it is. clang is so good. lol here i am whining that clang doesn't keep the inferred guess at a signature flexible enough to admit the later decl is good enough
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Silver Alicorn posted:c/++ are supposed to compile down to asm in a very direct manner. if you want higher level functionality, you need to look elsewhere also i don't understand this argument, if i wanted to write asm id write asm
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
I would like to write a toy compiler (or even just an interpreter for a toy language) but not want to have to read 10,000 pages first. Where should I realistically start?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
c allows you to write code that can be ported to different hardware with minimal effort.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I would like to write a toy compiler (or even just an interpreter for a toy language) but not want to have to read 10,000 pages first. Where should I realistically start? http://www.atariarchives.org/2bml/
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I would like to write a toy compiler (or even just an interpreter for a toy language) but not want to have to read 10,000 pages first. Where should I realistically start? do a scheme
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
follow some simple rules in c (never use typedefs or prototypes, make all your functions return int) and youll never have to forward declare them
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:lol here i am whining that clang doesn't keep the inferred guess at a signature flexible enough to admit the later decl is good enough the type of an undeclared function is defined by the language standard, not the compiler, and it can never be changed because the old terrible code that uses it is the sort of old terrible code that would rely on it honestly i would not even want to improve the signature "guess" if we could because it would just make people think that it was at all acceptable to use the feature
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I would like to write a toy compiler (or even just an interpreter for a toy language) but not want to have to read 10,000 pages first. Where should I realistically start? that Nicklaus Wirth “Compiler Construction” book, seriously in print it’s a trade paperback under 1cm thick and is all built around exercises
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:the type of an undeclared function is defined by the language standard, not the compiler, and it can never be changed because the old terrible code that uses it is the sort of old terrible code that would rely on it clang -Wall --i-am-never-calling-undeclared-functions --seriously-my-code-isnt-from-the-80s --go-ahead-and-find-my-static-defines foo.c
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I would like to write a toy compiler (or even just an interpreter for a toy language) but not want to have to read 10,000 pages first. Where should I realistically start? this worked for me. if you're serious you should probably follow it up with something more serious but you write an interpreter from scratch (if you don't count the host language) and it took me about a week https://interpreterbook.com/ i'd also do it in another language so you have to think through the problems on your own DONT THREAD ON ME fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Aug 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Neat suggestions, thanks everyone!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
Volmarias posted:I would like to write a toy compiler (or even just an interpreter for a toy language) but not want to have to read 10,000 pages first. Where should I realistically start? for specifically compilers i am fond of the lcc book https://sites.google.com/site/lccretargetablecompiler/
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 01:33
|
|