Re: Phoenix language

[Gregory Casamento]

Guys, I'm apologize to David publicly here.  When I wrote him it was
to give him a heads up that I would be asking him for advice, but I
didn't present a plan at that time (a few months ago).   So I ask now.
If any of you has any help to give PLEASE jump in and help me on this.
  I am going to re-write the parser using a recursive descent approach
instead of the yacc grammar.  I believe this is the best way to go
because, as David pointed out and as I already knew, both GCC and
LLVM/Clang have moved to this approach.

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Gregory Casamento
<greg.casamento@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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



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