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...
Related
I understand that it is easy to hack Mach-O executable, I just want simple protection against "class-dump" tool. Is there any tool or XCode plugin that can change all classes names and class functions to something not very readable (like random combination of symbols and numbers)?
Frankly that's all protection I need.
I wrote a bit about this in this blog post, but to summarise: you can avoid having methods appearing in class-dump by registering them at runtime, or just keeping them as functions.
If really all you want to do is rename the classes/methods, you can use the tops command-line tool or Xcode's refactoring feature.
Are you looking for Objective C obfuscators?
This page has a great discussion on Obfuscating Cocoa.
You really probably don't want to bother with this. Obfuscation will not prevent a determined hacker from reverse engineering a truly valuable algorithm. Casual users won't bother, so you're likely doing a lot of work for little added value. As #mvds points out in a comment to your question, NIB connections will betray the purpose of many classes and a determined hacker could use dtrace/Instruments.app to trace messages to uncover much of the rest of what they need.
Any truly valuable IP needs to be protected by something stronger than obfuscation and should probably be written in C/C++ as well as having legal patent and copyright protection (and enforcement).
If you're not doing already, you can at least strip your executable of certain unnecessary symbols by enabling 'Deployment Postprocessing' and 'Strip Linked Product 'in the Xcode build setting. (Or just use the strip tool directly.) Better than nothing.
Why doesn’t Objective-C have namespaces? It seems like a simple feature that would make some class names more readable (AVMutableVideoCompositionLayerInstruction anyone?) and axe the silly letter prefixes on class names. Is this mainly because of backwards compatibility? Is it harder to implement namespaces than it seems?
I don't know the answer but I suspect "it's harder than it looks" is probably it. You would have to introduce support in the compiler and linker in a way that doesn't break existing software. And while this is obviously possible (C++ has already done it) presumably the tool chain team have had higher priorities on their plate. e.g. in the recent past we have had garbage collection, GCD, blocks and Objective-C 2.0 appear so we can't say they have been doing nothing.
Namespace support is the one thing that I would dearly love to see introduced to Objective-C.
I don't know if you want to know if there is some official decision.
But namespace like many other feature are choice, choice made by the language contributor.
PHP only recently introduced Namespace, and for example Java use package that act like namespace or python use modules.
I think that there is an overhead in namespace implementation, mainly because Objective-c is dinamically typed so at runtime you have to make some check to resolve the namespace, to resolve default behaviour,etc.. and I can suppose that because Objective-c is also used in embedded enviroment (AKA iPhone) speed is very important.
You've to wrap everything I've said in a big IMHO ;D
Update:
I found this very interesting discussion http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/Adding-namespaces-to-Objective-C-td1870848.html#a1872744 on the clang developer website explaining the reason why is definitely non-trivial to implement namespace in Obj-C.
I'm thinking about writing my own little language.
I found a few options, but feel free to suggest more.
JVM
Parrot
OSA
A lot of languages are using the JVM, but unless you write a Java-ish language, all the power the stdlib gives you is going to feel ugly; It's not very good at dynamic stuff either.
Parrot seems a good VM for developing languages, but it has a little abandoned/unfinished/hobby project smell to it.
OSA is what powers Applescript, not a particularly well known VM, but I use Mac, and it offers good system integration.
CLR+Mac doesn't seem a good combination...
My language is going to be an object orientated functional concurrent dataflow language with strong typing and a mix of Python and Lisp syntax.
Sounds good, eh?
[edit]
I accepted Python for now, but I'd like to hear more about OSA and Parrot.
One approach I've played with is to use the Python ast module to build an abstract syntax tree representing the code to run. The Python compile function can compile an AST into Python bytecode, which exec can then run. This is a bit higher level than directly generating bytecode, but you will have to deal with some quirks of the Python language (for example, the fundamental difference between statements and expressions).
In doing this I've also written a "deparse" module that attempts to convert an AST back to equivalent Python source code, just for debugging. You can find code in the psil repository if you're interested.
Have a look at LLVM. It's not a pure VM as such, more a framework with it's own IR that allows you to build high level VMs. Has nice stuff like static code analysis and JIT support
Lua has a small, well-written and fast VM
Python VM - you can really attach a new language to it if you want. Or write (use?) something like tinypy which is a small and simple implementation of the Python VM.
Both options above have access to useful standard libraries that will save you work, and are coded in relatively clean and modular C, so they shouldn't be hard to connect to.
That said, I disagree that Parrot is abandoned/hobby. It's quite mature, and has some very strong developers working on it. Furthermore, it's specifically a VM designed to be targeted by multiple dynamic languages. Thus, is was designed with flexibility in mind.
Have you considered Pypy? From what I've read, in addition to being a Python JIT Compiler, it also has the capability to handle other languages. For example there is a tutorial which explains how to create a Brainfuck JIT compiler using Pypy.
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)...
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.