I would like to make an "simple" program that after i clap the hands would do an certain event like open a browser. However i want do other things after this, so the program must be able to evolve.
Which programing languague should i choose in order to do this?
I know vb, python, c, c++, learning java(isnt going very well).
Thanks.
To be honest, I just don't believe that you 'know' vb, python, c, and c++. Because if you did - you'd know that all you have to do to is google the problem, and you'd find a solution for multiple different languages.
I think instead of trying to jump into a 'clap detection app', a better idea would be to start slowly and actually MASTER (or at least start trying to master) one language. A jack of all trades is a master of none - and this is especially true in beginning programming. Just dive into one of the languages you 'know', I'd suggest Python due to its general user-friendliness and diverse supporting libraries. Just keep learning and eventually you'll be able to do almost anything!
I would like to give a simple, non-opinion based answer. A programming language serves two purposes:
"it provides a vehicle for the programmer to specify actions to be executed,
it provides a set of concepts for the programmer to use when thinking about what can be done."
(Bjarne Stroustrup: "C++ programming language, 1.3.2.)
Your problem is not simple at all - clap detection is not a trivial thing to do: it involves real-time detection of a time characteristic, spectral characteristic and possibly a visual gesture (not to be confused with a similar sound from a different source). Take into account that a clap from the same person in different spaces also sounds differently. Take into account possible dynamic variations.
Only by learning languages in depth you'll be able to get familiar with language specific concepts for the programmer to use when thinking about what can be done, as well as with specifying actions to be executed for any particular language.
Also, when dealing with sound, you need a basic knowledge of acoustics.
As a rule of thumb, almost all serious real-time audio processing code is written in languages which are mature, small and can make fast runtime executables.
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.
Alright, I guess this question has been asked a lot of times here.
I want to create a programming language, not necessarily starting today, but over a span of 2-3 yrs. I'm not a very good programmer, but I'm improving. What I wanted to ask is how closely creating a language and writing a compiler related?
Since, a compiler translates a language from one form into another, I guess it's all about writing a compiler for a particular piece of text. SO if I learn compiler design, will I be able to write my own programming language?
You can design a programming language without knowing anything about implementing compilers, and vice versa. The language designer can write a specification for the language, and a compiler implementor can then take that and create the compiler.
However, if this is a personal project, then you will probably have to learn how to do both. A programming language for which there is no compiler is purely theoretical, and it is difficult to figure out how good a programming language is without writing and executing real programs with it. Even if you do find someone willing to implement the compiler for you, you might not want to have to wait for that person every time you have a new idea to try, so you will want to know how to do it yourself.
Implementing a compiler is a pretty advanced programming project, so if you are just getting started as a programmer, you have a steep learning curve ahead of you. You might want to start by looking at the tutorials and examples for LLVM, although that might not actually be a suitable compiler infrastructure for your language.
Naruto, it depends on what kind of "Language" you want to create. If it is a simple, just-for-learning language, and you choose the grammar, etc, etc, you won't need to know a lot about programming. BUT, if you are going to deal with a serious one, you will have to study at least one computer programming language deep not only to use it, but to try to reach several of its concepts, for example, like OO, generics, lambda expressions, etc, etc.
Believe me, this is not a task of months, but a serious journey. Anyway, I wish you luck ;)
Intimately related. You really don't have a language unless you have a way to interpret/compile it into an executable form.
It depends on what you mean by "compiler". Compilers/interpreters usually consist of two big parts: a parser part, which reads a text in your language and builds an internal structure (AST) out of it, and a code generation/interpretation part, which reads the AST and translates it to machine or byte codes. While you definitely will need to know how to write a parser for your language, code generation is less important, at least, at the early stages. You can start by simply translating your language to C and see where you go from there.
Let's say a tester is to do some programming to create automated tests ... is Lua really easy to learn for someone who is not a developer?
It depends on the particular non-developer in question. Some people will utterly block on any programming language at all. Some will easily grok many languages and basic programming concepts. There is no silver bullet for putting the power of programming in the hands of someone who is untested on it.
That being said, my personal feeling is that Lua is as good of a place to start as any other programming language.
The Lua language has an active and usually novice-friendly community. It has a long history of use on the boundary between non-programmers and programmers. The language reference manual and standard text book are among the best written examples I've seen in my career. The full text of the reference manual is online, and the first edition of Programming in Lua is as well, although the second edition of PiL reflects the differences in the language that happened after PiL was first published and is well worth the investment to purchase.
One of Lua's strengths is the ease with which it can be integrated into an existing system to construct a configuration and scripting interface to an application. That makes the development cost to adopt it relatively low. Its small size makes the impact on an application release remarkably low as well. Thus getting an existing system to the point where it can be scripted enough with Lua to use Lua as a basis for testing will likely be a straightforward task with few hidden obstacles.
Lua is very forgiving which many people associate with "easy". You do not have to enter semi-colons, you do not have to scope variables, you can write all of your functions in the global scope. Of course doing these things only make your life easier when writing. When debugging even a new programmer may soon see why taking these short cuts is not such a good idea.
I also believe that you can write very simple, easy to use APIs in Lua and you could also create very complex APIs, which may involve object oriented concepts (such as the difference between . and :) or functional APIs with closures and passing around functions as function arguments, etc. Whether the user is able to properly use and understand the language to do the task at hand depends largely on the API as much as or more so than the language.
I do believe Lua is an easier language to learn than many others, like Ruby and Python (and obviously Perl). Lua's grammar and syntax are more consistent than Ruby's for instance; in Ruby you have so many reserved keywords, plus all sorts of symbols (curly-brackets for blocks and pipes for local variables etc), plus it gives you too many options (you can either use curly-brackets for blocks, or you can use the keywords do and end to start and end blocks).
I believe that for non-programmers Lua is much easier especially because of the reasons outlined above. As for programmers, I've read many people say this very same thing and I agree: programming in Lua is very pleasant. I believe that's also because of what I said above.
It probably is becausee its very similar to Python:
The number of universities using Python in there introductory Comp Sci courses is probably the highest of any language (empirically through google). Second probably being Java and Scheme.
The number of Python libraries is astronomical. And the number of people that know the language is quite high thus if you hire a new person there is a good chance they have seen the language before.
Ironically I have grown to not like the language so I am not saying this because I am python fan boy.
As long as you clearly explain to the testers the pitfalls that they may face when debugging in LUA it shouldn't be harder than learning the programming basics of any other language.
What goes through my mind is the situation where the tester made a typo and wrote a different, yet almost unnoticeable, name for a variable. The new variable will be created with the given value but the old variable won't be modified. That sort of thing can be pretty hard to debug when people are not extremely aware of it.
I'm a programmer for more than ten years.
I've learned and used different programming languages.
I've heard about Lua in different occasions, but I've never used it before.
Recently, I decided to learn Lua because our customers are using it.
After spending days on reading the PiL, it turned out for me that Lua is a powerful, flexible, yet sophisticated programming language.
From a software developer point of view, I don't think it's easy for me to be a good coder in Lua in a short time.
But if you just want to 'do something' with Lua, especially if you are from a background of non-programmer, you may feel pleased with Lua, which may be much easier to write some ready-to-use code than some 'traditional' language such as Java, C/C++, Python, etc.
I need to get around to writing that programming language I've been meaning to write. How do you kids do it these days? I've been out of the loop for over a decade; are you doing it any differently now than we did back in the pre-internet, pre-windows days? You know, back when "real" coders coded in C, used the command line, and quibbled over which shell was superior?
Just to clarify, I mean, not how do you DESIGN a language (that I can figure out fairly easily) but how do you build the compiler and standard libraries and so forth? What tools do you kids use these days?
One consideration that's new since the punched card era is the existence of virtual machines already bountifully provided with "standard libraries." Targeting the JVM or the .NET CLR instead of ye olde "language walled garden" saves you a lot of bootstrapping. If you're creating a compiled language, you may also find Java byte code or MSIL an easier compile target than machine code (of course, if you're in this for the fun of creating a tight optimising compiler then you'll see this as a bug rather than a feature).
On the negative side, the idioms of the JVM or CLR may not be what you want for your language. So you may still end up building "standard libraries" just to provide idiomatic interfaces over the platform facility. (An example is that every languages and its dog seems to provide its own method for writing to the console, rather than leaving users to manually call System.out.println or Console.WriteLine.) Nevertheless, it enables an incremental development of the idiomatic libraries, and means that the more obscure libraries for which you never get round to building idiomatic interfaces are still accessible even if in an ugly way.
If you're considering an interpreted language, .NET also has support for efficient interpretation via the Dynamic Language Runtime (DLR). (I don't know if there's an equivalent for the JVM.) This should help free you up to focus on the language design without having to worry so much about the optimisation of the interpreter.
I've written two compilers now in Haskell for small domain-specific languages, and have found it to be an incredibly productive experience. The parsec library makes playing with syntax easy, and interpreters are very simple to write over a Haskell data structure. There is a description of writing a Lisp interpreter in Haskell that I found helpful.
If you are interested in a high-performance backend, I recommend LLVM. It has a concise and elegant byte-code and the best x86/amd64 generating backend you can find. There is an optional garbage collector, and some experimental backends that target the JVM and CLR.
You can write a compiler in any language that produces LLVM bytecode. If you are adventurous enough to learn Haskell but want LLVM, there are a set of Haskell-LLVM bindings.
What has changed considerably but hasn't been mentioned yet is IDE support and interoperability:
Nowadays we pretty much expect Intellisense, step-by-step execution and state inspection "right in the editor window", new types that tell the debugger how to treat them and rather helpful diagnostic messages. The old "compile .x -> .y" executable is not enough to create a language anymore. The environment is nothing to focus on first, but affects willingness to adopt.
Also, libraries have become much more powerful, noone wants to implement all that in yet another language. Try to borrow, make it easy to call existing code, and make it easy to be called by other code.
Targeting a VM - as itowlson suggested - is probably a good way to get started. If that turns out a problem, it can still be replaced by native compilers.
I'm pretty sure you do what's always been done.
Write some code, and show your results to the world.
As compared to the olden times, there are some tools to make your job easier though. Might I suggest ANTLR for parsing your language grammar?
Speaking as someone who just built a very simple assembly like language and interpreter, I'd start out with the .NET framework or similar. Nothing can beat the powerful syntax of C# + the backing of the entire .NET community when attempting to write most things. From here i designed a simple bytecode format and assembly syntax and proceeeded to write my interpreter + assembler.
Like i said, it was a very simple language.
You should not accept wimpy solutions like using the latest tools. You should bootstrap the language by writing a minimal compiler in Visual Basic for Applications or a similar language, then write all the compilation tools in your new language and then self-compile it using only the language itself.
Also, what is the proposed name of the language?
I think recently there have not been languages with ALL CAPITAL LETTER names like COBOL and FORTRAN, so I hope you will call it something like MIKELANG with all capital letters.
Not so much an implementation but a design decision which effects implementation - if you make every statement of your language have a unique parse tree without context, you'll get something that it's easy to hand-code a parser, and that doesn't require large amounts of work to provide syntax highlighting for. Similarly simple things like using a different symbol for module namespaces and object namespaces ( unlike Java which uses . for both package and class namespaces ) means you can parse the code without loading every module that it refers to.
Standard libraries - include the equivalent of everything in C99 standard libraries other than setjmp. Add whatever else you need for your domain. Work out an easy way to do this, either something like SWIG or an in-line FFI such as Ruby's [can't remember module name] and Python's ctypes.
Building as much of the language in the language is an option, but projects which start out doing either give up (rubinius moved to using C++ for parts of its standard library), or is only for research purposes (Mozilla Narcissus)
I am actually a kid, haha. I've never written an actual compiler before or designed a language, but I have finished The Red Dragon Book, so I suppose I have somewhat of an idea (I hope).
It would depend firstly on the grammar. If it's LR or LALR I suppose tools like Bison/Flex would work well. If it's more LL, I'd use Spirit, which is a component of Boost. It allows you to write the language's grammar in C++ in an EBNF-like syntax, so no muddling around with code generators; the C++ compiler compiles the grammar for you. If any of these fail, I'd write an EBNF grammar on paper, and then proceed to do some heavy recursive descent parsing, which seems to work; if C++ can be parsed pretty well using RDP (as GCC does it), then I suppose with enough unit tests and patience you could write entire compilers using RDP.
Once I have a parser running and some sort of intermediate representation, it then depends on how it runs. If it's some bytecode or native code compiler, I'll use LLVM or libJIT to process it. LLVM is more suited for general compilation, but I like the libJIT API and documentation better. Alternatively, if I'm really lazy, I'll generate C code and let GCC do the actual compilation. Another alternative, is to target an existing VM, like Parrot or the JVM or the CLR. Parrot is the VM being designed for Perl. If it's just an interpreter, I'll walk the syntax tree.
A radical alternative is to use Prolog, which has syntax features which remarkably simulate EBNF. I have no experience with it though, and if I am not wrong (which I am almost certainly going to be), Prolog would be quite slow if used to parse heavy duty programming languages with a lot of syntactical constructs and quirks (read: C++ and Perl).
All this I'll do in C++, if only because I am more used to writing in it than C. I'd stay away from Java/Python or anything of that sort for the actual production code (writing compilers in C/C++ help to make it portable), but I could see myself using them as a prototyping language, especially Python, which I am partial towards. Of course, I've never actually done any of this before, so I'm not one to say.
On lambda-the-ultimate there's a link to Create Your Own Programming Language by Marc-André Cournoyer, which appears to describe how to leverage some modern tools for creating little languages.
Just to clarify, I mean, not how do you DESIGN a language (that I can figure out fairly easily)
Just a hint: Look at some quite different languages first, before designing a new languge (i.e. languages with a very different evaluation strategy). Haskell and Oz come to mind. Though you should also know Prolog and Scheme. A year ago I also was like "hey, let's design a language that behaves exactly as I want", but fortunatly I looked at those other languages first (or you could also say unfortunatly, because now I don't know how I want a language to behave anymore...).
Before you start creating a language you should read this:
Hanspeter Moessenboeck, The Art of Niklaus Wirth
ftp://ftp.ssw.uni-linz.ac.at/pub/Papers/Moe00b.pdf
There's a big shortcut to implementing a language that I don't see in the other answers here. If you use one of Lukasiewicz's "unparenthesized" forms (ie. Forward Polish or Reverse Polish) you don't need a parser at all! With reverse polish, the dependencies go right-to-left so you simply execute each token as it's scanned. With forward polish, it's the reverse of that, so you actually execute the program "backwards", simplifying subexpressions until reaching the starting token.
To understand why this works, you should investigate the 3 primary tree-traversal algorithms: pre-order, in-order, post-order. These three traversals are the inverse of the parsing task that a language reader (i. parser) has to perform. Only the in-order notation "requires" a recursive decent to re-construct the expression tree. With the other two, you can get away with just a stack.
This may require more "thinking' and less "implementing".
BTW, if you've already found an answer (this question is a year old), you can post that and accept it.
Real coders still code in C. Just that it's a litte sharper.
Hmmm... language design? or writing a compiler?
If you want to write a compiler, you'd use Flex + Bison. (google)
Not an easy answer, but..
You essentially want to define a set of rules written in text (tokens) and then some parser that checks these rules and assembles them into fragments.
http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.16/16.07/UsingFlexandBison/
People can spend years on this, The above article talks about using two tools (Flex and Bison) That can be used to turn text into code you can feed to a compiler.
First I spent a year or so to actually think how the language should look like. At the same time I helped in developing Ioke (www.ioke.org) to learn language internals.
I have chosen Objective-C as implementation platform as it's fast (enough), simple and rich language. It also provides test framework so agile approach is a go. It also has a rich standard library I can build upon.
Since my language is simple on syntactic level (no keywords, only literals, operators and messages) I could go with Ragel (http://www.complang.org/ragel/) for building scanner. It's fast as hell and simple to use.
Now I have a working object model, scanner and simple operator shuffling plus standard library bootstrap code. I can even run a simple programs - as long as they fit in one file that is :)
Of course older techniques are still common (e.g. using Flex and Bison) many newer language implementations combine the lexing and parsing phase, by using a parser based on a parsing expression grammar (PEG). This works for recursive descent parsers created using combinators, or memoizing Packrat parsers. Many compilers are built using the Antlr framework also.
Use bison/flex which is the gnu version of yacc/lex. This book is extremely helpful.
The reason to use bison is it catches any conflicts in the language. I used it and it made my life many years easier (ok so i'm on my 2nd year but the first 6months was a few years ago writing it in C++ and the parsing/conflicts/results were terrible! :(.)
If you want to write a compiler obviously you need to read the Dragon Book ;)
Here is another good book that I have just read. It is practical and easier to understand than the Dragon Book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=language+implementation+patterns&x=0&y=0
Mike --
If you're interested in an efficient native-code-generating compiler for Windows so you can get your bearings -- without wading through all the unnecessary widgets, gadgets, and other nonsense that clutter today's machines -- I recommend the Osmosian Order's Plain English development system. It includes a unique interface, a simplified file manager, a friendly text editor, a handy hexadecimal dumper, the compiler/linker (of course), and a wysiwyg page-layout application for documentation. Written entirely in Plain English, it is a quick download (less than a megabyte), small enough to understand in short order (about 25,000 lines of Plain English code, with just 4,000 in the compiler/linker), yet powerful enough to reproduce itself on a bottom-of-the-line Dell in less than three seconds. Really: three seconds. And it's free to all who write and ask for a copy, including the source code and and a rather humorous tongue-in-cheek 100-page manual. See www.osmosian.com for details on how to get a copy, or write to me directly with questions or comments: Gerry.Rzeppa#pobox.com