I have a concept (let's call it A) that is being generated into a Ruby class using TextGen. I want to have the possibility to generate the same concept into other languages e.g Python. Could someone describe how to do it or some hint?
I recommend you use plaintextgen plugin (https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/8444-com-dslfoundry-plaintextgen) for this. You can then just use reduction rules to generate the text. A tutorial for this can be found here: https://dslfoundry.com/plaintextgen-tutorial/
Using textgen aspect is also possible, but is much more involved for your use case, because it requires either that you have an existing MPS language for each text-based target language (Python, Ruby, C#, etc.) or that you implement a minimum version (at least containing the concepts and textgen aspects for the constructs you need in your generation result) of such a target language yourself.
Related
I want to know that what are the strategies to create a source to source translator i.e creating translation from one high level language to another. The two ways that come into my mind are
1- Changing syntax tree of one language to other language syntax tree
2- Changing it to intermediate language and then converting that to other high level language
My question is that is it possible to do the conversion using both strategies and which is more feasible to do, can anyone give some refernces to any theory or implementation done by some converter like any of above methods. And is there any standard xml based intermediate language, i know that xmlvm uses xml as intermediate language but it does not provide any proper specification of the intermediate language.
Any compiler is, roughly, a source-to-source translator. Target language can be an assembly language (or directly a binary machine code language), or C, or whatever high level language you fancy. So, the general compilers theory is applicable.
And just as a word of advice - one intermediate language is normally not nearly enough. Use more. Use dozens of intermediate languages, each different from a previous one in just one tiny aspect. This way any language-to-language translation is nothing but trivial.
Another word of advice (anticipating downvotes here) - stay away from XML, especially as a representation for ASTs.
I would look at LLVM, which can do source to source. Although the output isn't pretty, it might provide some good ideas.
The converters are usually based on constructing the semantic tree of one program and then re-shaping it to the target PL. As an example, take a look at C# to Java convertor.
The second approach is also possible, but the organization of your code may change completely after conversion. So, it is better to keep the intermediate common structure (IL, ST, etc), as high level as possible.
Try Clang! It is powerful for source-to-source translation. As of now it fully supports C, C++, Objective C and Objective C++.
You may also want to look at ROSE compiler infrastructure.
I'm just asking this out of curiosity :
Is there any tool that can automatically convert a source code of reasonable complexity from one language to another ?
Is there any "meta-language" that can compile into several other languages ? For example CoffeeScript compiles into Javascript.
If you know any open-source example, it'd be great !
Thank you for your time.
PS: No idea how to tag this. Feel free to edit.
GCC converts complex C++ code into machine code and thus technically is an answer to your question. In fact, there are lots of compiler like this, but I don't think these are what you intended to ask.
There are tools that are hardwired to translate just one language to another as source code (another poster suggested "f2C", which is a perfect example). These are just like compilers... but rarer.
There are virtually no tools that will map from one language to many others, out of the box. The problem is that languages have different execution models, data types, and execution schemes, which such a translator has to simulate properly in the target language.
The are "code generators" that claim to do this, but they are largely IMHO specifications of rather simple functions that translate trivially to simple code in the target langauge.
If you want to translate one language to another in a sort of general way, you need a program transformation system, e.g., a system that can parse arbitrary langauges, and for which you can provide translation rules that map to other languages in a sort of straightforward way.
Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit is one of these. This SO What kinds of patterns could I enforce on the code to make it easier to translate to another programming language? discusses the issues in more detail.
You can convert Fortran code to C using the f2c tool.
For python, you can convert a subset of the language to C++ using shedskin.
The vala language is converted to C before the real compilation.
i have planned to develop a tool that converts a program written in a programming language (eg: Java) to a common markup language (eg: XML) and that markup code is converted to another language (eg: C#).
in simple words, it is a programming language converter that converts program written in one language to another language.
i think it is possible but i don know where to start. i wanna know the possibilities to do so and information about some existing system.
What you are trying to do is extremely hard, but if you want to know what you are up for I've listed the steps you need to follow below:
First the hard bit:
First you obtain or derive an operational semantics for your source and target languages.
Then you enhance the semantics to capture your source and target memory models.
Then you need to unify the two enhanced-semantics within a common operational model.
Then you need to define a mapping from your source languages onto the common operational model.
Then you need to define a mapping from your operational model to your target language
Step 4, as you pointed out in your question, is trivial.
Step 1 is difficult, as most languages do not have sufficiently formal semantics specified; but I recommend checking out http://lucacardelli.name/TheoryOfObjects.html as this is the best starting point for building a traditional OO semantics.
Step 2 is almost certainly impossible in general, but may be merely obscenely difficult if you are willing to sacrifice some efficiency.
Step 3 will depend on how clean the result of step 1 turned out, but is going to be anything from delicate and tricky to impossible.
Step 5 is not going to be trivial, it is effectively writing a compiler.
Ultimately, what you propose to do is impossible in general, due to the difficulties inherited in steps 1 and 2. However it should be difficult, but doable, if you are willing to: severely restrict the source language constructs supported; pretty much forget handling threads correctly; and pick two languages with sufficiently similar semantics (ie. Java and C# are ok, but C++ and anything-else is not).
It depends on what languages you want to support, but in general this is a huge & difficult task unless you plan to only support a very small subset of each language.
The real problem is that each programming languages has different features (with some areas that overlap and others that don't) and different ways of solving the same problems -- and it's pretty tricky to detect the problem the programmer is trying to solve and convert that to a new idiom. :) And think about the differences between GUIs created in different languages....
See http://xmlvm.org/ as an example (a project aimed at converting between source code of many different languages, with an XML middle-point) -- the site covers in some depth the challenges they are tackling and the compromises they take, and (if you still have any interest in this kind of project...) ask more specific followup questions.
Notice specifically what the output source code looks like -- it's not at all readable, maintainable, efficient, etc..
It is "technically easy" to produce XML for any single langauge: build a parser, construct and abstract syntax tree, and dump out that tree as XML. (I build tools that do this off-the-shelf for many languages). By technically easy, I mean that the community knows how to do this (see any compiler textbook, e.g., Aho&Ullman Dragon book). I do not mean this is a trivial exercise in terms of effort, because real languages are complicated and messy; there have been many attempts to build C++ parsers and few successes. (I have one of the successes, and it was expensive to get right).
What is really hard (and I don't try to do) is produce XML according to a single schema in which the language semantics are exposed. And without that, it will be essentially impossible to write a translator from a generic XML to an arbitrary target language. This is known as the UNCOL problem and people have been looking since 1958 for the answer. I note that the Wikipedia article seems to indicate the problem is solved, but you can't find many references to UNCOL in the literature since 1961.
The closest attempt I've seen to this is the OMG's "ASTM" model (http://www.omg.org/spec/ASTM/1.0/Beta1/); it exports XMI which is XML. But the ASTM model has lots of escapes built into it to allow langauges that it doesn't model perfectly (AFAIK, that means every language) to extend the XMI in arbitrary ways so that the language-specific information can be encoded. Consequently each language parser produces a custom version of the XMI, and thus each reader has to pretty much know about the extensions and full generality vanishes.
I would like to create a set of domain objects in multiple languages, so that I can target different platforms. I have been looking at external DSLs as a way to define a language for my domain, and then potentially writing adapters that generate code for the languages I'm interested in targeting. Is this the best way to solve this problem? Or is it just simpler to maintain multiple versions of the project?
I think that Apache Thrift delivers what you are asking for.
Sorry for late answer, but as you mention C# being your main language, this practically fully supported Visual Studio based technology is exactly what you are looking for.
You have to understand what you want to abstract with your DSLs, but the multiple-platform support is trivial on top of that.
Disclaimer: This is our technology, but it's publicly open and it solves exactly the problem presented in the question.
http://abstraction.codeplex.com/
Note! Mind the very "alpha" stage of the current download, I suggest you skip the zipped download and grab the latest source. I am updating better construct in relatively near future. Check out the "Context" implementation in "Production/Dev/AbstractionTemplate" solution.
It is difficult to be helpful without understanding what you are planning to use your DSL for.
Is portability your main problem here?
To succesfully target these different platforms, you will probably have to maintain plaftorm-specific layers anyway (generated or not).
If you plan to write your whole application in your DSL, then use your own compiler to transform it into runnable code for each platform, well it is most probably a bad idea, too complex and overengineered.
However, if you have a well-defined chunk of platform-independent logic, then a DSL is a good choice. Just write an interpreter for it on each target platform (provided that performance is not critical, this is also simpler and easier than generating code).
What is the best way to create multiple language versions of a domain?
This is (was?) somehow the idea of Model Driven Architecture (MDA). Quoting Model-driven architecture from Wikipedia:
The Model-Driven Architecture approach
defines system functionality using a
platform-independent model (PIM) using
an appropriate domain-specific
language (DSL).
Then, given a platform definition
model (PDM) corresponding to CORBA,
.NET, the Web, etc., the PIM is
translated to one or more
platform-specific models (PSMs) that
computers can run. This requires
mappings and transformations and
should be modeled too.
The PSM may use different Domain
Specific Languages (DSLs), or a
General Purpose Language (GPL) like
Java, C#, PHP, Python, etc. Automated tools generally
perform this translation.
Depending on the complexity of your domain and the availability of a MDA Tool, this might be an option (with a lower implementation cost).
See also
MDA: Nice idea, shame about the ...
Language Workbenches and Model Driven Architecture
UML vs. Domain-Specific Languages
DSL in the context of UML and GPL
UML or DSL: Which Bear Is Best? (be sure to read this one)
say i found a good open source software/library written in python. i want to wrap some of the functions or methods that i have created into easy to understand language of my own.
do porter_stemm(DOC) (the DSL) would be equivalent to the function or series of methods written in python.
i want to create a DSL that is easy to learn, but need this DSL translated into the original open source software software.
im not sure if i am clear here but my intention is:
create an easy to learn code language that users can use to solve a problem in a certain niche.
this simple language needs to be translated or compiled or interpretated via some middleware into the original open source software's language (python).
Write your DSL's syntax and a parser for it, e.g., in Python, with pyparsing (simpler than the traditional lexx-yacc like approach) -- the parser can produce a tree of semantically meaningful nodes, and then you can (simpler) walk that tree and interpret it, or (a bit less simple) walk that tree and generate equivalent Python code. That's the approach I'd suggest for most host languages. Some host languages (Lisp and Scheme being the main ones) have powerful macros, so building a DSL out of macros is more common in those languages.
Embedding your DSL in the host language basically means you're not really doing a DSL but a more traditional framework, so that's really a different approach (possibly more powerful, but may be not quite as easy to learn for non-programmers;-).
Typically a DSL would still have the same basic syntax as its host language, and simply extend the language's capabilities. So everything for you is still written in Python, it's just Python with some domain-specific functions, variables, etc.
My experience with DSLs is mostly with the Lisp family of languages. There, a typical DSL might be implemented with Macros, which generate code-patterns that are specific to the DSL. (Plus, functions relating to the DSL). The point is, although the macros and functions may extend the capabilities of the language, they are still implemented in that language.
I suppose you could go a step farther and write an interpreter in Python - but there you still get Python runnability for free, as your interpreter translates your custom language back into Python.