Can someone direct me to online resources for designing and implementing abstract semantic graphs (ASG)? I want to create an ASG editor for my language. Being able to edit the ASG directly has a number of advantages:
Only identifiers and literals need to be typed in and identifiers are written only once, when they're defined. Everything else is selected via the mouse.
Since the editor knows the language's grammar, there are no more syntax errors. The editor prevents them from being created in the first place.
Since the editor knows the language's semantics, there are no more semantic errors.
There are some secondary advantages:
Since all the reserved words are easily separable, a program can be written in one locale and viewed in other. On-the-fly changes of locale are possible.
All the text literals are easily separable, so changes of locale are easily made, including on-the-fly changes.
I'm not aware of a book on the matter, but you'll find the topic discussed in portions of various books on computer language. You'll also find discussions of this surrounding various projects which implement what you describe. For instance, you'll find quite a bit of discussion regarding the design of Scratch. Most workflow engines are also based on scripting in semantic graphs.
Allow me to opine... We've had the technology to manipulate language structurally for basically as long as we've had programming languages. I believe that the reason we still use textual language is a combination of the fact that it is more natural for us as humans, who communicate in natural language, to wield, and the fact that it is sometimes difficult to compose and refactor code when proper structure has to be maintained. If you're not sure what I mean, try building complex expressions in Scratch. Text is easier and a decent IDE gives virtually as much verification of correct structure.*
*I don't mean to take anything away from Scratch, it's a thing of beauty and is perfect for its intended purpose.
I see a lot of different styles of variable names used in different kind of languages. Sometimes these names are lowercase and using underscores (i.e. test_var) and other times I see variables like testVar.
Is there a specific reason why programmers use different variable name styles in different languages?
It's really just the convention for that programming language.
For example, most Java programs use camel-casing (testVar) while a lot of C programs use _ to seperate words (test_var).
It's completely the choice of the programmer, but most languages have "standard" naming conventions.
As Wiki says :
Reasons for using a naming convention (as opposed to allowing programmers to choose any character sequence) include the following:
to reduce the effort needed to read and understand source code;1
to enhance source code appearance (for example, by disallowing overly long names or abbreviations).
Also there are code conventions in companies that care about readability of their code.
This simplify the code sharing between programmers and they don't spend time to understand what means variables name "aaa" and "bbb".
There is no real reason. Each language and sometimes even platform can have varying naming conventions.
For instance, in .Net TestVar would be seen if it was a public class variable. In C++, testVar would probably be opted for. In Ruby, test_var, etc. It's just a matter of preference by the community and/or creators.
I urge you to follow language standards. I work on a team that has had many developers working on the code over the years, and very few standards have been followed. The majority of our code is nearly unreadable. I have been working on a standardization project for the last several months. It has been very difficult to enforce and get buy-in. I'm hopeful that people will come around as they start seeing the benefits of easy to read code.
For naming conventions/standards keep this in mind:
Follow team/company standards
Follow language standards
Follow the style that the program is already using
Do whatever you want (Not really - if you don't have standards follow
your language standards/conventions.)
In my ongoing effort to quench my undying thirst for more programming knowledge I have come up with the idea of attempting to write a (at least for now) simple programming language that compiles into bytecode. The problem is I don't know the first thing about language design. Does anyone have any advice on a methodology to build a parser and what the basic features every language should have? What reading would you recommend for language design? How high level should I be shooting for? Is it unrealistic to hope to be able to include a feature to allow one to inline bytecode in a way similar to gcc allowing inline assembler? Seeing I primarily code in C and Java which would be better for compiler writing?
There are so many ways...
You could look into stack languages and Forth. It's not very useful when it comes to designing other languages, but it's something that can be done very quickly.
You could look into functional languages. Most of them are based on a few simple concepts, and have simple parsing. And, yet, they are very powerful.
And, then, the traditional languages. They are the hardest. You'll need to learn about lexical analysers, parsers, LALR grammars, LL grammars, EBNF and regular languages just to get past the parsing.
Targeting a bytecode is not just a good idea – doing otherwise is just insane, and mostly useless, in a learning exercise.
Do yourself a favour, and look up books and tutorials about compilers.
Either C or Java will do. Java probably has an advantage, as object orientation is a good match for this type of task. My personal recommendation is Scala. It's a good language to do this type of thing, and it will teach you interesting things about language design along the way.
You might want to read a book on compilers first.
For really understanding what's going on, you'll likely want to write your code in C.
Java wouldn't be a bad choice if you wanted to write an interpreted language, such as Jython. But since it sounds like you want to compile down to machine code, it might be easier in C.
I recommend reading the following books:
ANTLR
Language Design Patterns
This will give you tools and techniques for creating parsers, lexers, and compilers for custom languages.
Has anyone out there actually used inversion of control containers within compiler implementations yet? I know that by design, compilers need to be very fast, but I've always been curious about how IoC/DI could affect the construction of a programming language--hot-swappable syntaxes, anyone?
Lisp-style languages often do this. Reader macros are pieces of user-written code which extend the reader (and hence, the syntax) of a language. Plain-old macros are pieces of user-written code which also extend the language.
The entire syntaxes aren't hot-swappable, but certain pieces are extendable in various ways.
All this isn't a new idea. Before it was deemed worthy of a three-letter acronym, IoC was known as "late binding", and pretty agreed on as a Good Idea.
LR(k) grammars typically use a generic parser system driven by tables (action-goto/shift-reduce tables), so you use a table generator tool which produces these tables and feed them to the generic parser system which then can parse your input using the tables. In general these parser systems then signal you that a non-terminal has been reduced. See for example the GoldParser system which is free.
I wouldn't really call it inversion of control because it's natural for compilers. They are usually a series of passes that transform code in the input language to code in the output language. You can, of course, swap in a different pass (for example, gcc compiles multiple languages by using a different frontend).
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
What are the differences between these programming paradigms, and are they better suited to particular problems or do any use-cases favour one over the others?
Architecture examples appreciated!
All of them are good in their own ways - They're simply different approaches to the same problems.
In a purely procedural style, data tends to be highly decoupled from the functions that operate on it.
In an object oriented style, data tends to carry with it a collection of functions.
In a functional style, data and functions tend toward having more in common with each other (as in Lisp and Scheme) while offering more flexibility in terms of how functions are actually used. Algorithms tend also to be defined in terms of recursion and composition rather than loops and iteration.
Of course, the language itself only influences which style is preferred. Even in a pure-functional language like Haskell, you can write in a procedural style (though that is highly discouraged), and even in a procedural language like C, you can program in an object-oriented style (such as in the GTK+ and EFL APIs).
To be clear, the "advantage" of each paradigm is simply in the modeling of your algorithms and data structures. If, for example, your algorithm involves lists and trees, a functional algorithm may be the most sensible. Or, if, for example, your data is highly structured, it may make more sense to compose it as objects if that is the native paradigm of your language - or, it could just as easily be written as a functional abstraction of monads, which is the native paradigm of languages like Haskell or ML.
The choice of which you use is simply what makes more sense for your project and the abstractions your language supports.
I think the available libraries, tools, examples, and communities completely trumps the paradigm these days. For example, ML (or whatever) might be the ultimate all-purpose programming language but if you can't get any good libraries for what you are doing you're screwed.
For example, if you're making a video game, there are more good code examples and SDKs in C++, so you're probably better off with that. For a small web application, there are some great Python, PHP, and Ruby frameworks that'll get you off and running very quickly. Java is a great choice for larger projects because of the compile-time checking and enterprise libraries and platforms.
It used to be the case that the standard libraries for different languages were pretty small and easily replicated - C, C++, Assembler, ML, LISP, etc.. came with the basics, but tended to chicken out when it came to standardizing on things like network communications, encryption, graphics, data file formats (including XML), even basic data structures like balanced trees and hashtables were left out!
Modern languages like Python, PHP, Ruby, and Java now come with a far more decent standard library and have many good third party libraries you can easily use, thanks in great part to their adoption of namespaces to keep libraries from colliding with one another, and garbage collection to standardize the memory management schemes of the libraries.
These paradigms don't have to be mutually exclusive. If you look at python, it supports functions and classes, but at the same time, everything is an object, including functions. You can mix and match functional/oop/procedural style all in one piece of code.
What I mean is, in functional languages (at least in Haskell, the only one I studied) there are no statements! functions are only allowed one expression inside them!! BUT, functions are first-class citizens, you can pass them around as parameters, along with a bunch of other abilities. They can do powerful things with few lines of code.
While in a procedural language like C, the only way you can pass functions around is by using function pointers, and that alone doesn't enable many powerful tasks.
In python, a function is a first-class citizen, but it can contain arbitrary number of statements. So you can have a function that contains procedural code, but you can pass it around just like functional languages.
Same goes for OOP. A language like Java doesn't allow you to write procedures/functions outside of a class. The only way to pass a function around is to wrap it in an object that implements that function, and then pass that object around.
In Python, you don't have this restriction.
For GUI I'd say that the Object-Oriented Paradigma is very well suited. The Window is an Object, the Textboxes are Objects, and the Okay-Button is one too. On the other Hand stuff like String Processing can be done with much less overhead and therefore more straightforward with simple procedural paradigma.
I don't think it is a question of the language neither. You can write functional, procedural or object-oriented in almost any popular language, although it might be some additional effort in some.
In order to answer your question, we need two elements:
Understanding of the characteristics of different architecture styles/patterns.
Understanding of the characteristics of different programming paradigms.
A list of software architecture styles/pattern is shown on the software architecture article on Wikipeida. And you can research on them easily on the web.
In short and general, Procedural is good for a model that follows a procedure, OOP is good for design, and Functional is good for high level programming.
I think you should try reading the history on each paradigm and see why people create it and you can understand them easily.
After understanding them both, you can link the items of architecture styles/patterns to programming paradigms.
I think that they are often not "versus", but you can combine them. I also think that oftentimes, the words you mention are just buzzwords. There are few people who actually know what "object-oriented" means, even if they are the fiercest evangelists of it.
One of my friends is writing a graphics app using NVIDIA CUDA. Application fits in very nicely with OOP paradigm and the problem can be decomposed into modules neatly. However, to use CUDA you need to use C, which doesn't support inheritance. Therefore, you need to be clever.
a) You devise a clever system which will emulate inheritance to a certain extent. It can be done!
i) You can use a hook system, which expects every child C of parent P to have a certain override for function F. You can make children register their overrides, which will be stored and called when required.
ii) You can use struct memory alignment feature to cast children into parents.
This can be neat but it's not easy to come up with future-proof, reliable solution. You will spend lots of time designing the system and there is no guarantee that you won't run into problems half-way through the project. Implementing multiple inheritance is even harder, if not almost impossible.
b) You can use consistent naming policy and use divide and conquer approach to create a program. It won't have any inheritance but because your functions are small, easy-to-understand and consistently formatted you don't need it. The amount of code you need to write goes up, it's very hard to stay focused and not succumb to easy solutions (hacks). However, this ninja way of coding is the C way of coding. Staying in balance between low-level freedom and writing good code. Good way to achieve this is to write prototypes using a functional language. For example, Haskell is extremely good for prototyping algorithms.
I tend towards approach b. I wrote a possible solution using approach a, and I will be honest, it felt very unnatural using that code.