To continue some ideas of "C++ Archeology: Limits of OO paradigm", i want
to ask about C++ development.

There are C++ compilers, that has been written in old good C. Are C or
pascal perfect languages that can be used to build any powerful OO
language with mutable source representation, as C++ could be? Obviously
no.

Is current C++ can be used to build the OO language? Obviously no, because
unfortunatelly C++ simultaneously is not-trivial for implementation, but
quite limited for users.

I have got a hint, that we can select "core of C++" (that does not mean
the core must be completely compatible with current C++ or its subset) and
use the not-mutable core language to build all concrete-hardware "complete
C++" compilers. The "complete C++" language can be the powerful OO
language with mutable source representation, structured by dialects.

The core language properties must be:
- compiler of the core must be able to be easy implemented by C-like
language
- the core must be very conservative (to resists all possible
improvements)
- the core must be suitable to express complete C++ compiler

The related questions are:
- what kind (enumerated set of properties) of language must we take for
core compiler?
- what set of properties and paradigms (in comparison with current C++)
must be supported by the core language?

The complete language can have "default compiler" - the thing with the
follow properties:
- public source code in terms of "core language"
- very slow, but pure incremental
- very easy to be extended by users with new dialects

The "default compiler" can be represented as:
- front-end translator from any concrete representation of "C++ source" to
concrete unified "internal (not for human using) representation"
- front-end compiler and logical optimiser from "internal representation"
to "code generator source code"
- code generator and hardware optimiser from "code generator source code"
to "compiled representation"
- C++ uints linker from "compiled representation"
- traditional static linker -//-
- C++ dynamic linker -//-
- traditional dynamic linker -//-

The related questions are:
- what (enumerated set of properties) is
- unified "internal (not for human using) representation"
- "code generator source code"
- "compiled representation"

Pure logical optimiser can be impossible to implement, so logical and
hardware optimisers can be implemented as separated, but related to the
concrete hardware pair for each concrete hardware

So, what can you advise about all of these?

Maksim A. Polyanin
http://grizlyk1.narod.ru/cpp_new


--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/...comp.lang.c++/
More information at http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/faq.html

On Feb 23, 9:00am, "Grizlyk" <grizl...@yandex.ru> wrote:
> To continue some ideas of "C++ Archeology: Limits of OO paradigm", i want
> to ask about C++ development.
>
> There are C++ compilers, that has been written in old good C. Are C or
> pascal perfect languages that can be used to build any powerful OO
> language with mutable source representation, as C++ could be? Obviously
> no.
>

This is a problem with the gnu stuff. In my opinion a lot of
intelligent people have painted themselves into a corner as far as gcc
goes. They keep adding to it in C and it gets to be an even bigger
mess than it was before they started. It needs to be rewritten and I
would use C++ if I were doing it.


> Is current C++ can be used to build the OO language? Obviously no, because
> unfortunatelly C++ simultaneously is not-trivial for implementation, but
> quite limited for users.
>
> I have got a hint, that we can select "core of C++" (that does not mean
> the core must be completely compatible with current C++ or its subset) and
> use the not-mutable core language to build all concrete-hardware "complete
> C++" compilers. The "complete C++" language can be the powerful OO
> language with mutable source representation, structured by dialects.
>
> The core language properties must be:
> - compiler of the core must be able to be easy implemented by C-like
> language
> - the core must be very conservative (to resists all possible
> improvements)
> - the core must be suitable to express complete C++ compiler
>
> The related questions are:
> - what kind (enumerated set of properties) of language must we take for
> core compiler?
> - what set of properties and paradigms (in comparison with current C++)
> must be supported by the core language?
>
> The complete language can have "default compiler" - the thing with the
> follow properties:
> - public source code in terms of "core language"
> - very slow, but pure incremental

I'm not sure what you mean with that last item. What will be
very slow?

> - very easy to be extended by users with new dialects
>
> The "default compiler" can be represented as:
> - front-end translator from any concrete representation of "C++ source" to
> concrete unified "internal (not for human using) representation"
> - front-end compiler and logical optimiser from "internal representation"
> to "code generator source code"
> - code generator and hardware optimiser from "code generator source code"
> to "compiled representation"
> - C++ uints linker from "compiled representation"
> - traditional static linker -//-
> - C++ dynamic linker -//-
> - traditional dynamic linker -//-
>

I don't understand that very well, but I will reiterate something that
seems kind of related. In my opinion it would be ful to split
current C++ compilers into two pieces. The first would output fully
instantiated C++ code and it would be available on-line. The second
would be more like a normal compiler and it would turn the output from
the first step into object code. I think that would require a "whole-
program" assumption, but I don't think that is a problem. If you want
decent optimization you have to be willing to reveal the whole
program.

Brian Wood
Ebenezer Enterprises
www.webebenezer.net

coal@mailvault.com wrote:

>> There are C++ compilers, that has been written
>> in old good C. Are C or pascal perfect
>> languages that can be used to build any
>> powerful OO language with mutable source
>> representation, as C++ could be?
>> Obviously no.
>
> This is a problem with the gnu stuff.

No, i am not speaking about gnu stuff. Limitations here can be explained
by nature of programming language - nature of supported paradigms.

It is hard to write mutable results in languages, that has no enough
abstraction.

Maksim A. Polyanin
http://grizlyk1.narod.ru/cpp_new


--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/...comp.lang.c++/
More information at http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/faq.html

Grizlyk wrote:

>>> There are C++ compilers, that has been written
>>> in old good C. Are C or pascal perfect
>>> languages that can be used to build any
>>> powerful OO language with mutable source
>>> representation, as C++ could be?
>>> Obviously no.
>> This is a problem with the gnu stuff.
>
> No, i am not speaking about gnu stuff. Limitations here can be explained
> by nature of programming language - nature of supported paradigms.
>
> It is hard to write mutable results in languages, that has no enough
> abstraction.

What do you mean by "mutable results"?

Of course a C++ compiler can be written in C, you can also write one in
assembler or as a Turing Machine program.

Mattias wrote:

>What do you mean by "mutable results"?

Read first message of the thread.

By the way, it seems to me, the first message is an example of questions
of OO conceptual level decomposition of the C++ domain and i asked experts
of C++ compilers who can describe the domain.

> C++ compiler can be written in C

Have _you_ done it already?

Maksim A. Polyanin
http://grizlyk1.narod.ru/cpp_new

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/...comp.lang.c++/
More information at http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/faq.html

Grizlyk wrote:

>> What do you mean by "mutable results"?
>
> Read first message of the thread.

I did before responding. The term "mutable result(s)" doesn't appear in
there. What does appear is "mutable source representation" but I have no
idea what this is supposed to mean.
What exactly is your question?

> By the way, it seems to me, the first message is an example of questions
> of OO conceptual level decomposition of the C++ domain and i asked experts
> of C++ compilers who can describe the domain.

It sounds more like gibberish to me, sorry.

>> C++ compiler can be written in C
> Have _you_ done it already?

I don't have to.

Matthias Buelow wrote:

> What exactly is your question?

Some of my questions in the first message even has word "question".

>> and i asked experts of C++ compilers
>> who can describe the domain.
>
> It sounds more like gibberish to me, sorry.

Alas. OO desing require ask experts of problem domain, even if you think
that this is gibberish for anybody. Anybody, who will answer, must take in
account what is the question about, maybe it is not easy to guess.

>>> C++ compiler can be written in C
>> Have _you_ done it already?
>
> I don't have to.

The "have to" is wrong modal verb maybe? If you say "can be written", you
can prove it by anything, can't you?

Maksim A. Polyanin
http://grizlyk1.narod.ru/cpp_new



--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/...comp.lang.c++/
More information at http://www.talkaboutprogramming.com/faq.html

Grizlyk wrote:

>>>> C++ compiler can be written in C
>>> Have _you_ done it already?
>> I don't have to.
>
> The "have to" is wrong modal verb maybe? If you say "can be written", you
> can prove it by anything, can't you?

The g++ (Gnu) compiler is written in C. Probably some others too.