I have a specification and I wish to transform it into a library. I can write a program that writes out Haskel source. However is there a cleaner way that would allow me to compile the specification directly (perhaps using templates)?
References to manuals and tutorials would be greatly appropriated.
Yes, you can use Template Haskell. The are a couple of approaches to using it.
One approach is to use quasiquotation to embed (parts of) the text of the specification in a quasiquotation within a source file. To implement it, you need to write a parser of the machine specification that outputs Haskell AST. This might be useful if the specification is relatively static, it makes sense to have subsets of the specification, or you want to manually map parts of the specification to different modules. This may also be useful, in addition to a different approach perhaps, to provide tools for users of the library to express things in terms of the specification.
Another approach is to execute IO in a normal Template Haskell splice. This would allow you to read the specification from a file (see addDependentFile too in this case), the network (don't do this), or to execute an arbitrary program to produce the Haskell AST needed. This might be more useful if the specification changes more often, or you want to keep a strict separation between the specification and code.
If it's much easier to produce Haskell source than Haskell AST, you can use a library like haskell-src-meta which will parse a string into Template Haskell AST.
I'm sketching a design of something (machine learning of functions) that will preferably want a functional programming language, and also introspection, specifically the ability to examine the program's own code in some nicely tractable format, and preferably also the ability to get machine generated code compiled at runtime, and I'm wondering what's the best language to write it in. Lisp of course has strong introspection capabilities, but the statically typed languages also have advantages; the ones I'm considering are:
F# - the .Net platform has a good story here, you can read byte code at run time and also emit byte code and get it compiled; I assume there's no problem accessing these facilities from F#.
Haskell, Ocaml - do these have similar facilities, either via byte code or parse tree?
Are there other languages I should also be looking at?
Haskell's introspection mechanism is Template Haskell, which supports compile time metaprogramming, and when combined with e.g. llvm, provides runtime metaprogramming facilities.
Ocaml has:
Camlp4 to manipulate Ocaml concrete syntax trees in Ocaml. The maintained implementation of Camlp4 is Camlp5.
MetaOCaml for full-scale multi-stage programming.
Ocamljit to generate native code at run time, but I don't think it's been maintained recently.
Ocaml-Java to compile Ocaml code for the Java virtual machine. I don't know if there are nice reflection capabilities.
Not really an answer, but note also the F# Quotations feature and library, for more homoiconicity stuff.
You might check out the typed variant of Racket (previously known as PLT Scheme). It retains most of the syntactic simplicity of Scheme, but provides a static type system. Since Racket is a Scheme, metaprogramming is par for the course, and the runtime can emit native code by way of a JIT.
The Haskell approach would be more along the lines of parsing the source. The Haskell Platform includes a complete source parser, or you can use the GHC API to get access that way.
I'd also look at Scala or Clojure which come with them all the libraries that have been developed for Java. You'll never need to worry if a library does not exist. But more to the point of your question, these languages give you the same reflection (or more powerful types) that you will find within Java.
I'm sketching a design of something (machine learning of functions) that will preferably want a functional programming language, and also introspection, specifically the ability to examine the program's own code in some nicely tractable format, and preferably also the ability to get machine generated code compiled at runtime, and I'm wondering what's the best language to write it in. Lisp of course has strong introspection capabilities, but the statically typed languages also have advantages; the ones I'm considering are:
Can you not just parse the source code like an ordinary interpreter or compiler? Why do you need introspection?
F# - the .Net platform has a good story here, you can read byte code at run time and also emit byte code and get it compiled; I assume there's no problem accessing these facilities from F#.
F# has a rudimentary quotation mechanism but you can only quote some expressions and not other kinds of code, most notably type definitions. Also, its evaluation mechanism is orders of magnitude slower than genuine compilation so it is basically completely useless. You can use reflection to analyze type definitions but, again, it is quite rudimentary.
You can read byte code but that has been compiled so a lot of information and structure has been lost.
F# also has lexing and parsing technology (most notably fslex, fsyacc and FParsec) but it is not as mature as OCaml's.
Haskell, Ocaml - do these have similar facilities, either via byte code or parse tree?
Haskell has Template Haskell but I've never heard of anyone using it (abandonware?).
OCaml has its Camlp4 macro system and a few people do use it but it is poorly documented.
As for lexing and parsing, Haskell has a few libraries (most notably Parsec) and OCaml has many libraries.
Are there other languages I should also be looking at?
Term rewrite languages like Mathematica would be an obvious choice because they make it trivial to manipulate code. The Pure language might be of interest.
You might also consider MetaOCaml for its run-time compilation capabilities.
I am working on new programming language, but I was always puzzled by the fact that everyone is using yaxx/lex to parse the code, but I am not.
My compiler (which is already working) is handcoded in C++/STL, and I cannot say it's complex or took too much time. It has both some kind of lexer and parser, but they are not autogenerated.
Earlier, I wrote a C compiler(not full spec) the same way - it was able to compile the program in 1 pass, with all these back references resolving & preprocessing - this is definitely impossible with yacc/lex.
I just cannot convince myself to scrap all this, and start diving into yaxx/lex - which might need quite an effort to implement and might possibly introduce some grammar limitations.
Is there something I miss when not using yacc/lex? Do I do an evil thing?
The main advantages of using any kind of lexer/parser generator is that it gives you a lot more flexibility if your language evolves. In a hand-coded lexer/parser (especially if you've mixed in a lot of functionality in a single pass!), changes to the language get nasty fairly quickly, whereas with a parser generator you make the change, re-run the generator, and move on with your life. There are certainly no inherent technical limitations to always just writing everything by hand, but I think the evolvability and maintainability of automating away the boring bits is worth it!
Yacc is inflexible in some ways:
good error handling is hard (basically, its algorithm is only defined to parse a correct string correctly, otherwise, all bets are off; this is one of the reasons that GCC moved to a hand-written parser)
context-dependency is hard to express, whereas with a hand-written recursive descent parser you can simply add a parameter to the functions
Furthermore, I have noticed that lex/yacc object code is often bigger than a hand-written recursive descent parser (source code tends to be the other way round).
I have not used ANTLR so I cannot say if that is better at these points.
The other huge advantage of using generators is that they are guaranteed to process exactly and only the language you specified in the grammar. You can't say that of any hand-written code. The LR/LALR variants are also guaranteed to be O(N), which again you can't assert about any hand coding, at least not without a lot of effort in constructing the proof.
I've written both and lived with both and I would never hand-code again. I only did that one because I didn't have yacc on the platform at the time.
Maybe you are missing out on ANTLR, which is good for languages that can be defined with a recursive-descent parsing strategy.
There are potentially some advantages to using Yacc/Lex, but it is not mandatory to use them. There are some downsides to using Yacc/Lex too, but the advantages usually outweigh the disadvantages. In particular, it is often easier to maintain a Yacc-driven grammar than a hand-coded one, and you benefit from the automation that Yacc provides.
However, writing your own parser from scratch is not an evil thing to do. It may make it harder to maintain in future, but it may make it easier, too.
It certainly depends on the complexity of your language grammar. An easy grammar means that there is an easy implementation and you can just do it yourself.
Take a look at maybe the worst possible example at all: C++ :) (Does anybody knows another language, besides natural languages, which are more difficult to parse correctly?) Even with tools like Antlr, is it quite difficult to get it right, though it is manageable. Whereby on the other side, even while being much harder, it seems that some of the best C++ parsers, e.g. GCC and LLVM, are also mostly handwritten.
If you don't need too much flexibility and your language is not too trivial, you will certainly safe some work/time by using Antlr.
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