I spoke about developing a programming language. Instead of making it compiled i am considering making it interpreted. So what i like to do is parse the syntax myself, build the AST and output source in an existing scripting language.
The thing i'd like to know is what interpreted language can i leverage for debugging? I'd like a call stack, file/source name and line #, to modify variables on the fly, etc.
What IDE must i use? i like visual studios but i presume it has no support for any interpreted languages
You should use Eclipse to do what you want. There is a lot of any interpreted language supports and you can easily debug with the Debug Perspective.
The advantage of the Python language is that all is open-source. Indeed, there is no obfuscation and you can watch the source code without any problem.
Related
I know that scripting languages don't use a compiler but rather are interpreted. But I can't find information why exactly is it beneficial? What do they gain by being interpreted?
the positives -
easier to create as they piggyback on an existing code system (c/cpp)
syntax easier to work with in most cases as the creators can focus on that rather than writing a compiler.
drawbacks:
need to provide the runtime package to use the code as it's not compiled down to native machine code. (it's instead interpreted into c functions, need the runtime to referee this)
not quote as fast as running native machine code
Scripting languages are designed to be interpreted. They are executed sequentially and the source itself is executed. Compare to something like C++ where a compile and link phase are fundamental to the language itself, and by the time you execute it, the source code is long gone.
So the default position is to interpret scripting languages. Interpreters may even compile in the background for optimization purposes.
So what are the advantages of interpretation versus compilation?
Simpler development environment. No compile process vastly simplifies development. Scripting languages don't require the effort of establishing a whole development environment.
Scripting languages can be used in small chunks - for example inline script in a webpage, or a little event handler in an application plugin. C code for example does not stand alone in small chunks like this.
I'm looking for an editor/IDE that can provide features that are nice to have while coding (example: being able to click-through to function definitions) for languages that it is not specifically built for. By these, I have in mind languages designed for a very specific purpose and often only used by a small community. In other words, ones that would not have native support in most software.
I realize this would require a fair bit of fairy dust but I don't think it's out of the scope of what's possible. Basically, the editor would have to be smart enough to recognize the commonly used syntax and semantics that many declarative languages have in common. It's quite possible this would require some amount of configuration.
Does something like this exist? If not, what challenges do you think there would be in creating it?
If you need only the feature to jump of to the definition of a specific function or class, then VIM (and many other editors, like Emacs, Epsilon and JOE) can read the jump location from the ctags file. You just have to write a ctags file generator for your custom language.
For programmable editors (like VIM, Emacs, Epsilon, Eclipse and gedit), you can write your own plugin for your custom language, but it may quickly become time-consuming and a maintenance nightmare, because new versions of editors tend to change the plugin interface.
Please note that adding support for syntax highlighting is usually much easier than adding ctags-like support for symbol lookups. More advanced features, like refactoring and context-sensitive symbol completion (like Ctrl-Space and Tab in modern IDEs) are even harder to implement.
GNU Emacs has a pretty good infrastructure for this sort of thing. Until recently Haskell was a relatively unknown language used primarily by researchers. Nevertheless, in a few thousand lines of Emacs Lisp, we have
Syntax highlighting with colors
Automatic indentation
Package support
Automatic highlighting of type and other information when placing the cursor over library functions
Meta-dot on an identifier to jump to its definition (through the standard emacs tags mechanism)
The nice thing about Emacs is that (a) there are many models to follow, and (b) you can build up the environment gradually, starting with those aspects that are most important to you.
I'm suprised no one has mentioned Notepad++ yet:
http://notepad-plus-plus.org/
It offers syntax support for a great many languages and offers the user to add new languages, and an active community that adds many languages that are not included out-of-the-box.
Most good IDE's are language agnostic and supports several if not many programming languages. If you are talking about DSL's, eclipse has a solution that seems pretty awsome - Xtext
EditPadPro comes with a set of tools that allow you to build your own syntax highlighting, code folding and file navigation schemes, based on a very powerful regex syntax. So if your language is not among the many that have already been provided out-of-the-box or can be downloaded off the website, you can roll your own quite easily (and share it with the community).
Visual Studio is designed to allow for this, but it requires the language to add explicit support. For example, Delphi Prism will install into Visual Studio, and provide full language support.
This is far above and beyond "configuration", however, and requires quite a bit of custom development to support.
SciTE and Scintilla offer a generic editor/platform for different languages. The library contains several parsers that work with many programming languages and you can reuse one of these for your own language to add formatting and syntax highlighting.
They don't offer advanced features like click-throughs, but you could build it on top of the library.
Visual Studio and Eclipse also support language plug-ins.
Zeus is a language neutral IDE for the Windows platform and it provides this go to definition/declaration functionality for any language supported by ctags.
To make it work you just create a Zeus project/workspace and then add the files to this workspace.
Assuming you can get a dynamic interpreter; can statically compiled languages replace scripting language? I never quite understood why anyone would use a scripting language? I am talking about on PC, not a limited system which needs a simplistic interpreter. I seen some python install scripts and seen similar python and C# solutions to a problem. So why use a scripting language?
NOTE: There are things that bother me about C#, i am not asking why not use C# instead. I am asking why use a scripting language? I find static compiled languages much easier to debug and often easier to code in.
There is very little distinction these days between compiling and interpreting. Look at how an interpreted language is executed - the first step is to convert the script into some kind of internal executable form, like byte code that can be executed by a simpler instruction set. This is essentially compilation to a virtual machine format. This is exactly what modern compiled languages do. And when compiled languages are deployed in server-side web apps, they even recompile from the source on the fly. So there's practically no difference in terms of the compile/execute technique.
The only difference is in the details of the instruction set, specifically in the type system. Scripting languages are usually (but not always) dynamically typed. But many large applications are also written in dynamically typed languages too. So again, there is no clear distinction here.
Personally I think static typing, far from being "extra unnecessary effort" (as it is often described) is actually a huge productivity booster, making it much easier to write short snippets correctly on the first attempt, thanks to intellisense/autocompletion. To underline this, look at how Microsoft has improved the jQuery library simply by adding static type information to it (in specially formatted comments) so we can have intellisense in the IDE.
And meanwhile, static languages (including C# and Java) are bringing in more dynamic typing features.
So I see these categories as eventually merging and the distinction being meaningless.
Wikipedia says that a Scripting Language is a language that controls other software. You can do that with C#, but true scripting languages like Powershell are designed specifically for this.
I tend to think of a scripting language in more "interactive" terms than C#. With a scripting language, you can write a line or two of code, execute it and see the results immediately. That's not so easy in C#, where you have to put your code in a Console Application, or fire it off from a unit test, or type it into the Immediate window where you don't have intellisense.
That rapid cycle of write, execute allows rapid prototyping of complete "scripts" in a scripting language, because it gives you immediate feedback on each line of code.
This kind of question often starts flame wars as people are passionate about their respective camps.
In the computer olden days, Unix command line tools and console shells provided a rich scripting environment where all sorts of processing could be done. You didn't need to be an expert programmer in any specific language and could string (pun intended) various programs (other people wrote) together using the pipe structure to massage your data which was mostly text not binary related. It is quick and easy to make changes to your batch command file. You don't have a source file that has to be edited, compiled linked with external static or shared libries/DLLS in the case of Windows.
One thing scripting does not have normally have is speed. You don't write device drives and live internet trading AI systems in scripting. But if you run a script once a day on some data received via e-mail or ftp you don't normally care how long it takes as it can run it background anyway.
Rewind back to the present and the waters become muddy. Some scripting enviroments offer a kind of speed up facility where they will read you script and almost compile and link in modules the same a normal C++ or VB program might use for speed puposes. But this very iffy and can't be relied on.
So how do you choose which route to go. Start doing tasks using scripting. If it runs too slow or you are having to do stuff every 5 minutes then parts of your script might benifit from a section written in a traditional language or the whole thing could be written in a language.
Like anything dabble and learn
Each is used for different purposes. Programs written in scripting languages are often not self-contained; they often function as "glue code" or (as Robert Harvey mentions) to automate a task. You often find scripting language interpreters embedded within an application (cf Python in Blender; Guile, Perl and Python in GIMP; JS in umpteen different browsers; Lua in countless games). Compiled languages, on the other hand, are used to produce self-contained applications. Scripts are mostly cross-platform; compiled applications usually aren't.
Note that a scripting language doesn't necessarily use an interactive interpreter (e.g. Perl), and an interpreted language isn't necessarily use for scripts (e.g. games made using PyGame). Note also that there's nothing about the languages themselves that make them interpreted or compiled. You could have a C# interpreter or a Ruby compiler. There have been a number of Lisp systems that offered both interpreters and compilers.
I would call my shell (bash) a scripting language, and I don't see a replacement comming, which is compiled.
I like to use scala, which is a statically typed language which comes with an interpreter-like REPL-interface, and due to type interference looks pretty much like a scripting language; have a look here: http://www.simplyscala.com/ .
But it isn't meant to be the glue between other programs as the shell is, so for small jobs, which are easily verified by hand and eye, which are just a few lines of code, I prefer to use the shell. And jumping from directory to directory is comfortable in a shell, where the prompt shows where I am.
Before we begin, I don't think that I've ever met a static language user who "got" scripting language without trying them, including myself. It is a different experience.
So no. Basically, you can add features to static languages which makes them superficially seem like scripting languages (like simple type inference), but its not the same:
Many scripting language users hate static languages. They feel constrained. Scripting languages are typically very good at not getting in the users way, which is sacrificed in static languages for speed/correctness.
Duck typing will not appear in static languages.
Scripting language users don't like type annotations. Its not really possible to provide a type-inference system for scripting languages, and the simple type inference appearing in some languages now only works for static types.
Techniques like monkey patching (which to my mind is a very bad idea) is pervasive in Ruby, and allows for very powerful techniques, which won't become available soon in static languages either.
Which isn't to say that a yet-to-be-designed language can't handle scripting language features in a relatively static way, but it would be difficult for it to become popular relative to the entrenched Python/PHP/Perl/Ruby/Javascript set. Factor is the closest thing, AFAICT.
What will happen is that scripting language implementations will get faster by using JITs.
Can a screw driver replace a hammer ? No, because you just don't use them for the same purpose. And if both exist, and if such a lot of people use either one or the other, there must be a reason...
Same anwser for :
class inheritance vs prototype;
imperative vs oo;
static vs dynamic typing;
strongly vs weakly typed;
manual memory management vs GC;
C# vs Java;
blue vs red;
man vs woman;
batman vs superman (but I do think superman would win... wait, there is kryptonite... oh man, I don't know...)
etc...
Because it is shorter to write since it is a higher level language, and it doesn't need the compilation cycle which also makes thing shorter.
I am asking why use a scripting
language? I find static compiled
languages much easier to debug and
often easier to code in.
Because I find loosely-typed dynamic languages without an explicit compile-run cycle much easier to debug and generally easier to code in.
If I were looking to create my own language are there any tools that would help me along? I have heard of yacc but I'm wondering how I would implement features that I want in the language.
Closely related questions (all taken by searching on [compiler] on stackoverflow):
Learning Resources on Parsers, Interpreters, and Compilers
Learning to write a compiler
Constructing a simple interpreter
...
And similar topics (from the same search):
Bootstrapping a language
How much of the compiler should we know?
Writing a compiler in its own language
...
Edit: I know the stackoverflow related question search isn't what we'd like it to be, but
did we really need the nth iteration of this topic? Meh!
The first tool I would recommend is the Dragon Book. That is the reference for building compilers. Designing a language is no easy task, implementing it is even more difficult. The dragon book helps there. The book even reference to the standard unix tools lex and yacc. The gnu equivalent tools are called flex and bison. They both generate lexer and parser. There exist also more modern tools for generating lexer and parser, e.g. for java there are ANTLR (I also remember javacc and CUP, but I used myself only ANTLR). The fact that ANTLR combines parser and lexer and that eclipse plugin is availabe make it very comfortable to use. But to compare them, the type of parser you need, and know for what you need them, you should read the Dragon book. There are also other things you have to consider, like runtime environment, programming paradigm, ....
If you have already certain design ideas and need help for a certain step or detail the anwsers could be more helpful.
ANTLR is a very nice parser generator written in Java. There's a terrific book available, too.
I like Flex (Fast Lex) [Lexical scanner]
and Bison (A Hairy Yacc) [Yet another compiler compiler]
Both are free and available on all *NIX installations. For Windows just install cygwin.
But I old school.
By using these tools you can also find the lex rules and yacc gramers for a lot of popular languages on the internet. Thus providing you with a quick way to get up and running and then you can customize the grammers as you go.
Example: Arithmetic expression handling [order of precedence etc is a done to death problem] you can quickly get the grammer for this from the web.
An alternative to think about is to write a front-end extension to GCC.
Non Trivial but if you want a compiled language it saves a lot of work in the code generation section (you will still need to know love and understand flex/bison).
I never finished the complete language, I had used rply and llvmlite implements a simple foxbase language, in https://github.com/acekingke/foxbase_compiler
so if you want use python, rply or llvmlite is helpful.
if you want use golang, goyacc maybe useful. But you should write a lexical analyzer by hard coding by hand. Or you can use https://github.com/acekingke/lexergo to simplify it.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Bootstrapping a language
What's the importance of having an interpreter for a given language written in the target language (for example, PyPy)?
It's not so much about writing the interpreter in itself - more about writing the interpreter in a high-level language, not in C. Ideally, doing so allows to change details of the implementation, and making the interpreter more modular.
For the specific case of PyPy, writing the interpreter and the core objects in (R)Python allows to retarget PyPy for targets (C, JVM, .NET, JavaScript, etc), and also allows to replace aspects such as the garbage collector.
I'm sure there are many different reasons for doing it. In some cases, it's because you truly believe the language is the best tool... so writing the language interpreter or compiler in the language itself can be seen as a form of dogfooding. If you are really interested in this subject, the following article is a really amazing read about the development of squeak. The current version of squeak is a smalltalk runtime written in smalltalk.
http://users.ipa.net/~dwighth/squeak/oopsla_squeak.html
An added benefit is that if you implement good debugers and IDEs for your target language, they also work for your source language.
This way, you can prove that the target language is serious business, because being able to make it compile something is a sign that it is a good language.
OK, C++ and Java produce compilers as well... so maybe that argument is only half as good as it may seem.