Can you create a statically typed language in Parrot VM or does it have to be dynamically typed?
Yes, you can, though neither the performance characteristics nor the tool chain is optimized for statically typed languages.
For example if your program has a dependency on another module, you will need to load that module at compile time, and somehow extract the type declarations and signatures in there. You'll need to do much of that (storing and then retrieving the type information) on your own, parrot doesn't offer any convenience methods for that.
You surely can create a statically typed language above a dynamically typed implementation (but not using the dynamic typing facilities).
Related
What makes programmatic introspection/reflection easier in virtual machines rather than native code?
I read somewhere that VMs by nature allow for better introspection/reflection capabilities but I cannot find more information about it online. Would like to know why.
I believe you mean higher-level languages vs lower-level languages instead of virtual machines.
Higher level languages like Java and C# have implemented reflection and introspection, so there are functions available to the developer to use this information.
Languages like C do not have any pre-built reflection capabilities.
Reflection is very expensive (time-consuming) for any language to run, and should not be used in code that needs to be extremely fast.
Programmatic introspection essentially means to examine & inspect the current call stack, or the current continuation. (Read Appel's book: Compiling with Continuations).
Few programming languages provide this ability. Scheme's call/cc reifies the current continuation, but give no standard ways to inspect it.
The current call stack might be inspectable (e.g. see GCC __builtin_return_address as an ad hoc example).
Most compilers (but not all) do not have an easy way to give information about the layout of the current call frame (however, the debugger DWARF format contains it).
And optimizing compilers (e.g. for C) usually don't give access to the offset of some local variable in the call frame (even if the compiler computes this offset). BTW, the same stack slot might be reused for different variables; read about register spilling.
See also J.Pitrat's CAIA system - the generated C code is able to organize the stack to be able to inspect it;
In a bytecode VM like JVM or NekoVM or Parrot, introspection is easier because each local variable has a well defined slot in the call frame. This is not the case for most compiled languages (e.g. C or C++) because the compiler is able to reuse (for optimization purposes) some slots, or even put a variable only in some machine register, without even allocating any call stack slot to spill it.
Is Microsofts C++/CLI built on top of the C++ Standard (C++98 or C++11) or is it only "similar" and has deviations?
Or, specifically, is every ISO standard conforming C++ program (either C++98 or C++11), also a conforming C++/CLI program?
Note: I interpret the Wikipedia article above only comparing C++/CLI to MC++, not to ISO Standard C++.
Sure, it is an extension to C++03 and can compile any compliant C++03 program that doesn't conflict with the added keywords. The only thing it doesn't support are some of the Microsoft extensions to C++, the kind that are fundamentally incompatible with managed code execution like __fastcall and __try. MC++ was their first attempt at it, kept compatible by prefixing all added keywords with underscores. The syntax was rather forced and not well received by their customers, C++/CLI dropped the practice and has a much more intuitive syntax. Stanley Lippman of C++ Primer fame was heavily involved btw.
The compiler can be switched between managed and native code generation on-the-fly with #pragma managed, the product is a .NET mixed-mode assembly that contains both MSIL and native machine code. The MSIL produced from native C++ source is not exactly equivalent to the kind produced by, say, the C# or VB.NET compilers. It doesn't magically become verifiable and doesn't get the garbage collector love, you can corrupt the heap or blow the stack just as easily. And no optimizer love either, the MSIL gets translated to machine code at runtime and is optimized just like normal managed code with the time restrictions inherent in a jitter. Getting too much native C++ code translated to MSIL is a very common mistake, the compiler hides it too well.
C++/CLI is notable for introducing syntax that got later adopted into C++11. Like nullptr, override, final and enum class. Bit of a problem, actually, it begat __nullptr to be able to distinguish between a managed and a native null pointer. They never found a great solution for enum class, you have to declare it public to get a managed enum type. Some C++11 extensions work, few beyond the ones it already had, auto is fine but no lambda expressions, quite a loss in .NET programming. The language has been frozen since 2005.
The C++/CX language extension is notable as well, one that makes writing C++ code for Store and Phone apps palatable. The syntax resembles C++/CLI a great deal, including the ref class and hats in the syntax. But with objects allocated with ref new instead of gcnew, the latter would have been too misleading. Otherwise very different from C++/CLI at runtime, you get pure native code out of C++/CX. The language extension hides the COM interop code that's underneath, automatically reference-counting objects, translating error codes into exceptions and mapping generics. The resemblance to C++/CLI syntax is no accident, they basically perform the same role. Mapping C++-like syntax to a foreign type system.
CLI is a set of extensions for standard C++. CLI has full support of standard C++ and adds something more. So every C++ program will compile with enabled CLI, except you are using a CLI reserved word and this is the weakness of the extension, because it does not respect the double underscore rule for extensions (such reserved words has to begin with __).
You can deactivate those extensions in the GUI by:
Configuration Properties -> General -> Common Language Runtime Support
Even Bjarne Stroustrup calls CLI an extension:
On the difficult and controversial question of what the CLI binding/extensions to C++ is to be called, I prefer C++/CLI as a shorthand for "The CLI extensions to ISO C++". Keeping C++ as part of the name reminds people what is the base language and will help keep C++ a proper subset of C++ with the C++/CLI extension
Language extensions could always be called deviations from the standard, because it will not compile with a compiler without CLI support (e.g. the ^ pointer).
I'm aware this might be a broad question (there's no specific code for you to look at), but I'm hoping I'd get some insights as to what to do, or how to approach the problem.
To keep things simple, suppose the compiler that I'm writing performs these three steps:
parse (and bind all variables)
typecheck
codegen
Also the language that I'm building the compiler for wants to support late-analysis/late-binding (ie., it has a function that takes a String, which is to be compiled and executed as a piece of source-code during runtime).
Now during parse-phase, I have a piece of context that I need to keep around till run-time for the sole benefit of the aforementioned function (because it needs to parse and typecheck its argument in that context).
So the question, how should I do this? What do other compilers do?
Should I just serialise the context object to disk (codegen for it) and resurrect it during run-time or something?
Thanks
Yes, you'll need to emit the type information (or other context, you weren't very specific) in your object/executable files, so that your eval can read it at runtime. You might look at Java's .class file format for inspiration; Java doesn't have eval as such, but you can dynamically spin new bytecode at runtime that must be linked in a type-safe manner. David Conrad's comment is spot-on: this information can also be used to implement reflection, if your language has such a feature.
That's as much as I can help you without more specifics.
I'm compiling a COBOL program as a DLL in zOS using the compiler options
PGMN(LM),DLL,EXPORTALL
When I do this, it also forces the compile to be NODYNAM. In this context, is there some other parm I can use to force the CALLS to to other subprograms from this to be dynamic (i.e. resolved at run time).
I know I can use the CALL variable-name approach to accomplish this, but I can't do this with system routines like DSNELI, the DB2 call interface.
Does the IMPORT option have something to do with this?
Thanks!
All DLL's must be complied with NODYNAM. This cannot be avoided. As you pointed out using NODYNAM does
not preclude dynamic program calls using the CALL var-name approach. As long as you are using dynamic calls
to locally developed routines you will maintain all of the advantages of not having static linked modules in
your programs.
Be less concerned about static linked system modules such as CALL 'DSNELI'. These are
stub programs that will dynamically load the appropriate language interface module at
run time. See Universal Language Interface.
Generally speaking, you want the calls to those system routines to be static. The routines tend to be stubs that locate the "real" routine at runtime.
I have a failure Marshaling a data structure (error abstract type (Custom)). There is one known abstract type in use, namely Big_int. However that Marshals fine. There is no custom C code in the application. Apart from Nums, Unix library is also used (however I don't believe there are any active objects of that type). We're Marshal'ing with Closures.
Two (only) third party libraries are in use: OCS Scheme (Scheme interpreter, pure Ocaml) and Dypgen (extensible GLR parser, also pure Ocaml). The problem is with a new feature of Dypgen, saving a dynamically extended parser.
The Ocaml error message is next to useless (it doesn't identify which abstract type with Custom tag is the culprit).
We suspected Lexbuf as the culprit because it contains a closure over an Ocaml channel, and can't be Marshal'ed, but it seems this isn't the problem. So my question is:
Which standard library components can't be Marshall'd?
Weak arrays cannot be marshaled. I am not familiar with OCS Scheme, but I would expect an interpreter for a garbage-collected language written in OCaml to use weak pointers (they let you piggy-back on OCaml's memory management).
In OCaml's defense, I do not think that the Custom method block contains the name of the type (retrospectively, that seems like a good thing to have).
EDIT: Yep:
$ grep Weak ~/Downloads/ocs-1.0.3/src/*.ml
/Users/pascal/Downloads/ocs-1.0.3/src/ocs_sym.ml:module SymTable = Weak.Make (HashSymbol)
EDIT2:
As pointed out by ygrek, there is room for a name in the custom method block. I should also clarify that weak arrays are not custom values, since my answer seemed to imply that. Weak arrays have the Abstract tag and are chained using the first word of data so that the garbage collector can traverse them in special weak-pointer-related phases of the collection cycle.