I'm sorry in advance if this question is not well expressed, I am trying to achieve something quite new to me and I am a little lost.
I am trying to include a Canon SDK inside an Objective-C wrapper, I understand from this paragraph that I needed to download the 64bit SDK:
There are a few steps that need to be taken in order to use EOSFramework in a project. First, ensure that you have downloaded the latest Canon EDSDK 64bit. EOSFramework currently relies on ARC which is only supported in 64bit. Therefore you must use the 64bit version of EDSDK. Also ensure that you have compiled or downloaded the latest version of EOSFramework as a .framework file.
Incidentally, after following instructions, the errors that I'm getting while building the frameworks are related to 64bit. Please see picture attached:
Can someone point out a way for me to figure this out?
I'm not sure if this won't bring a problem in the long run, but I found an answer in this post: _int64 does not name a type
Following this:
It looks like you you are trying to use MSVC specific __int64 type with GCC. That does not work, use long long instead.
Can someone point out a way for me to figure this out?
You need to track down the declaration of EdsUInt64 in the SDK you have downloaded and figure out why it is not being seen by the compiler when compiling the source you've shown.
Try right-clicking on EdsUInt32 (which the compiler was happy with) and jumping to its definition. Now look around, are the 64-bit types defined in the same place? Are they inside #if constructs? If so why are the conditions not true? Etc. Do some detective work.
You can also use TextWrangler/BBEdit, or other good editor, to do quick multi-file searches over all the SDK source to find the definitions.
If you don't find the definitions then you've got the wrong version of one of the SDKs, go back to Canon and get the right one.
The solution is very unlikely to be you needing to define the type yourself. The ARC comments in particular indicate you do have Mac specific source code, Canon compile it on a Mac, so it's unlikely to be a MS or Gnu specific issue failing on a Mac etc.
Good Hunting!
HTH
I'm a developer in ActionScript and while I'm watching Haxe as a language to be used by me, since besides the resemblance ActionScript, still be possible to make applications with output to flash yet.
However I have a question about building AIR packages. When I search about building AIR applications with Haxe, the search does not bring satisfactory results.
I ask, after the codification and development of the code (in Haxe), how is it possible to transform what was built into an AIR package?
Thank you!
It isn't a very popular topic it seems. Anyhow, as far as I remember my experience building it some years ago, what you need would be:
If you need some air-specific APIs then you should write externs for them. There is this existing project, but it would need a bit of update as it was written for flash9, however, I believe it is doable in like 1 hour of work.
Compile to flash.
Write all the manifests you need for Air. (Sorry, don't remember what exactly it needs.)
Use this guides to package(also test and sign) your apps.
Note: If you want to go the same way you did before, you could compile haxe to as3 and be happy. However, I wouldn't recommend this method due to loosing speed and probable implications which may arrive.
I was looking at doxygene and I noticed that its output for objective-C is less than optimal, so I was looking at doxygene's internals(in which all syntax analyzers consolidated into a huge blob), and then I decided that it was going to take a lot of work just to figure out where to begin with that.
So I thought, ok let's start by creating a dictionary/tree from an objective-c source file which it seems Xcode does already(because symbols are search able). And it seems to use LLVM"clang" somehow. Does anyone know how I can invoke "clang" to return a structure of the symbols in a project/document?
Xcode doesn't directly use the "clang++" binary for this purpose. The clang++ binary is actually a very small wrapper around the Clang C++ libraries. Xcode uses libclang (a C wrapper around the C++ libraries) for its C++ parsing needs.
Thus, to get the information you want, you will need to use libclang. On this page are the slides and video of a presentation Doug Gregor (the main developer of Clang) gave at the 2010 dev meeting entitled "libclang: Thinking Beyond the Compiler".
Many people in the clang community have expressed interest in replacing Doxygen's parser with clang. So you are not alone. However, I believe it is not a small project.
Before answering this question, understand that I am not asking how to create my own programming language, I am asking how, using vb.net code, I can create a compiler for a language like vb.net itself. Essentially, the user inputs code, they get a .exe. By NO MEANS do I want to write my own language, as it seems other compiler related questions on here have asked. I also do not want to use the vb.net compiler itself, nor do I wish to duplicate the IDE.
The exact purpose of what I wish to do is rather hard to explain, but all I need is a nudge in the right direction for writing a compiler (from scratch if possible) which can simply take input and create a .exe. I have opened .exe files as plain text before (my own programs) to see if I could derive some meaning from what I assumed would be human readable text, yet I was obviously sorely disappointed to see the random ascii, though it is understandable why this is all I found.
I know that a .exe file is simply lines of code, being parsed by the computer it is on, but my question here really boils down to this: What code makes up a .exe? How could I go about making one in a plain text editor if I wanted to? (No, I do not want to do that, but if I understand the process my goals will be much easier to achieve.) What makes an executable file an executable file? Where does the logic of the code fit in?
This is intended to be a programming question as opposed to a computer question, which is why I did not post it on SuperUser. I know plenty of information about the System.IO namespace, so I know how to create a file and write to it, I simply do not know what exactly I would be placing inside this file to get it to work as an executable file.
I am sorry if this question is "confusing", "dumb", or "obvious", but I have not been able to find any information regarding the actual contents of an executable file anywhere.
One of my google searches
Something that looked promising
EDIT: The second link here, while it looked good, was an utter fail. I am not going to waste hours of my time hitting keys and recording the results. "Use the "Alt" and the 3-digit combinations to create symbols that do not appear on the keyboard but that you need in the program." (step 4) How the heck do I know what symbols I need???
Thank you very much for your help, and my apologies if this question is a nooby or "bad" one.
To sum this up simply: I want to create a program in vb.net that can compile code in a particular language to a single executable file. What methods exist that can allow me to do this, and if there are none, how can I go about writing my own from scratch?
What you're asking is a pretty complex question. Sure, at its core it seems pretty basic:
Interpret the code itself
Write out the interpreted code
but each of those steps can be pretty intense. Step 1 should be somewhat achievable with some time and a LOT of elbow grease - you need to parse the code into a number of control statements based upon the specification of the language. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsing for more information on this step. In essence you're converting the typed code into a common format that represents the functionality you want.
Once you've parsed the code, the next step would be to take that parsed code and convert it into machine-runnable code (typically assembly, though with VB.NET you can write Microsoft Intermediate Language code as the output and then run it in the CLR). This is what will actually create the executable file in a manner that lets the computer run the program.
Unfortunately, the best advice for solving this problem is to either:
Go purchase several books on a programming language, machine code, assembly language, compilers, and so on, then spend several months or years reading and experimenting until the knowledge you gain from the books results in your writing a successful compiler.
Enroll in a computer science program at a local university. Writing compilers and programming languages are usually covered at a rudimentary level during the second or third year of a BS in computer science, and then in much more depth at a graduate level.
Good luck!
EDIT: If all you're looking for is a way to write code and then write a way to execute it, you might try looking at writing an interpreter for one of the scripting languages that already exist - Ruby, Python, Lua, etc.
Process.Start(String.Format("vbc.exe {0}", sourceFilePath))
Here is one book that explains it all at a very basic level. Including sample code that you can get working in a matter of hours.
As with many programming endevors, it will take you many months of study to accomplish what you want. Good luck!!
Let me start by saying this is totally doable. Ignore the naysayers.
OK, so it seems you bit off more than you could chew here. I would suggest slightly re-evaluating your goal. It seems that you want to learn how compilers work, and writing a VB.net compiler is your project to get started.
Try instead to write an interpreter, which is a much smaller and simpler task. Here's how you do it:
Write a parser for a very very small language, maybe only supporting assignment statements. Use a parser toolkit, like Antlr. This will build an AST ("abstract syntax tree" - ie a few classes or objects representing the program's syntax, without the crap like semi-colons, as a tree), which will look something like this:
then you go through the AST, and just execute it. Google for "AST walker". So for the assignment x = 5, create a hashtable entry for 'x', assign 5 to it, then move on to the next statement.
keep adding features as you go.
Once you've got the full language, you'll probably have learned enough on the way to understand the compiler books. Don't use the dragon book, try Appel's book instead, or Cooper/Torczon. There are online books if you prefer, I've never tried them.
When you go to write the compiler, you'll just be changing the bit that executes the AST into one which generates assembly (or C if you prefer) which will do the same action when it's run.
I'll grant that it seems daunting, but if you stick to a something simple to start, you'll get something working in a few days at most. In a few months, you'll have built it up to something like what you're looking for. Good luck.
To the final part of your question:
It seems that you don't know how executables are made from code. People haven't messed with hex in their compilers since the 80s, and hopefully not much even then.
Basically, after parsing the code, you go through a series of steps which make the code progressively simpler. At the end of that, you have something that is quite close to assembly. You then generate assembly, and the assembler and linker conspire to make it into an executable.
The Visual Basic .NET compiler is shipped for free as part of the .NET Framework - you don't even need the SDK or Express Editions. The compiler for VB (and C#) is located at c:\windows\microsoft.net\framework[version]\vbc.exe (or csc.exe for C#). Therefore, any computer which can run a VB.NET program can compile one. The .NET Framework also includes the System.CodeDom namespace which provides a way from within a program to compile a program, either from a document model or from a string (or file) into a .NET assembly (.exe or .dll) and generate code in both VB and C#.
Regards,
Anthony D. Green | Program Manager | Visual Basic Compiler
You create a compiler for vb.net the same way you create any other compiler. You need a lexer/parser. Entire books have been written on this topic, the most famous probably being The Dragon Book.
To provide a definitive answer: No, you cannot create a decent compiler that will generate an executable file using Notepad. You need a compiler to convert from human-readable text into the machine language (assembly or IL) that a linker or interpreter can then execute.
You can try checking out my tutorial at http://www.icemanind.com
It is a tutorial on creating your own virtual machine and assembler, written in 100% C#.
Cyclone, I'm wondering exactly what are you trying to achieve? You say "the exact purpose of what I wish to do is rather hard to explain" and "essentially, the user inputs code, they get a .exe".
If you just want the user to be able to enter code and then execute it, you might consider an existing scripting language. VBScript is built into Windows and the language is fairly similar to VB.Net, or there are various excellent free languages you can download like Python.
If the user really needs to be able to create a .exe - I think it's likely scripting might do - then why not use an existing free compiler like FreeBasic, or even Visual Basic.Net Express Edition.
I am making a tutorial for that in my website, http://dgblogs.weebly.com. It is written with C# and you can create your own computer programming language!
You will never see this syntax in my tutorials:
Console.Readline();
My website is currently offline by now so, GOOD LUCK!
Thanks,
DgBlogs
Im quite shocked that this question was never fully answered ; Recently i came across some tutorials on the subject of developing a programming language from scratch https://www.youtube.com/c/DmitrySoshnikov-education/playlists
Although the person uses Java Script the technique used for creating the tokenizer and the parser to consume the output from the tokenizer producing the AST for the transcribed language which i would consider to be GOLD! ...
Another tutorial or person https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSq9OFrD2Q3DasoOa54Vm9Mr8CATyTbLF
Toby Ho! Has also produce various methods using the Nearly parser (plugin) to build a language much easier but not a Pure code coder like myself(does not like extensions to do the work which i can do myself)....
https://github.com/spydaz/SpydazWeb-AI-_Emulators
I was able to do some different experiments designing a stack machine (runs mini assembly language). for my "Toy" Programming language(basic) could be executed on. (the VM) - Using Visual Basic(My personal Lang - I think in VB)
Since revisiting the tutorials ;
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRAdsfhKI4OWNOSfS7EUu5GRAVmze1t2y
Immo Landwerth! Had a few more experiments This time with C#
A bit more Spaghetti to mull over; but actually revealing (after knowing a lot more);
Yes IT is possible to design a Compiler / VM with VB.net Quite easily ... without external tools .
For myself as an AI developer (CONVERSATIONAL AI / NLP) i was interested in building a compiler for the English language if it would be possible to use the technique for parsing syntax trees and building syntax trees from text using the Tokenizer/Parser to AST Method , as well as designing the transpiler to allow for the syntax tree to be used for translation to other languages. as with today's programming languages merely being a Higher lever language interfacing with a low level(VM) language. in-fact we should be developing more natural language - programming languages and dispelling the more cryptic languages such as C# (Lol) and Java and Go and the like (so many brackets and semi colons / tabs etc - truly not needed!) and that is to say that we programmers still think in code! the journey as a AI developer crosses many domains. forces many off topic research pathways .. So Again a big YES! and we Still could say that ANy programming language can be used to create another programming language it just depends on which language you "THINK IN" .... hence not having too many languages using (i understand most programming languages - but i will always think in VB)...
What are the programming features that are missing in C++ and Java ?
For eg. You can't do recursive programming in QBasic ? You can't dynamically allocate memory in QBasic.
What would be the good to have features in C++, Java.
I think Lisp Programmers will be able to add a few.
I miss lambda expressions.
This answer deals only with C++
Things I miss from the syntax, or the standard library:
RegExp as part of the standard library
Threads as part of the standard library
Pointer to member methods (not objects!)
Properties would be nice (I have seen codes that emulate this via C++ preprocessor... note an nice looking code).
Some lower level networking API (sockets!), and higher level API (give me this file from this ftp, submit "this" to this site via POST).
This is the list of things I would like to see, but I assume other people will disagree with me.
Memory garbage collector is nice.
A n interface for a GUI toolkit - let MSVC map it to win32, and on Linux... (good question!)
A stable ABI. In C it's a standard - but on C++ we are still missing a few decades. I want also stable ABI between compilers - I want to compile one library in MinGW, the other with CL and all should work.
This is the list of things I want to see, but I know they will not get away:
Compatibility with C. Really, it's a myth right now. using namespace std killed it.
Include, headers. Most of the information is already available in the DLL/so/a/"library", do we really need to keep this bad decision from 30 years ago? If needed the compilers should keep information in the binaries.
The need for Makefiles - the compiler should be smart enough to know what to do with this code, from the code itself. Pascal is doing it quite good. I think also D.
(I might be wrong, please correct me) The official standard openly and freely available for viewing. Why should I pay for the official papers? Do I need to do it for HTTP? UTF8? Unicode?
I think this is a very subjective question. From a theoretical point of view there's nothing "missing" in Java because you can do everything you want to from the perspective of the outcome as an application.
As with QBasic - recursion may not be possible but that doesn't prevent you from changing your recursive algorithm to an iterative algorithm. Programming language theory tells us that you can do this with every recursive problem. So there's also nothing missing here.
I think what you mean are features that are "nice to have" - and here everyone has to decide for himself. I'd even say there are features in the language which would have been "nice not to have" such as static imports - but again this is my subjective opinion...