Related
Is there any modern (generics, closures, object oriented) language with manual memory management? And with a compiler, either to machine code or to another language like c.
I haven't read of any. All new languages are garbage collected, and most of them interpreted or run in a vm.
EDIT: sorry, I know c++0x now has many new features, but I can't see it as a modern language. It's too ugly and illegible to me. And the way closures are used makes it worse.
By modern I meant something cleaner than c++.
If you use a C++0x version of C++ compiler (like the last gccs) then it does provide all the features you need. The C++03 (current version) does have generics, object orientation, have closures implementation (functors) but not the syntax (that is provided in C++0x, as "lambdas" - available in VS2010, gcc4.5 and other recent versions of compilers) and is all about manual (but easy) memory management (using RAII-the badly named idiom- and smart pointers where necessary).
Don't rely on c++ birth's date : what we call "modern C++" is clearly more easy and powerfull thant the original version of C++. (but it have a very long timing between new versions)
The only other alternative that I can think about is D, that is thought to be a system programming language too, that is similar to C++ in core principles but tries to avoid some of it's "problems" and provide some other features missing in C++.
C++ (Don't laugh)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B0x
Rust - Not sure if its GC but it looks interesting
https://github.com/graydon/rust/wiki/Language-FAQ
Well, how modern is modern ?
Delphi requires that you manage your Memory, but provides simple and elegant ways to do that, it also has a pluggable architecture for memory management, and compiles to native code.
Delphi is still actively developed, nowadays by Embarcadero but was created originally in 1995 by Borland software, and even then was the successor to Turbo Pascal, so modern might be a subjective term for Delphi as its history is long.
There is an experimental language BitC. It is quite low-level, compiles to a portable C, and have a lot of neat modern features.
A good old Ada also worth mentioning.
I currently program in Perl, Python, C#, C, C++, Java, and a few other languages, and I'm looking for a new language to use as a primary when doing personal projects.
My current criteria are:
can be run as an interpreted language (i.e., run without having to wait to compile it);
can be compiled to native code;
are strongly typed (even if optionally);
support macros/templating/code morphing/wtf you want to call it;
has a decent number of libraries for it, or easily accessible to it;
Ideas? Suggestions?
I would suggest that Haskell suits your criteria.
Can be run as an interpreted language? Yes, via GHCI.
Can be compiled to native code? Yes.
Is strongly typed? Very much so. Perhaps even the most strongly typed language today, with the exception of some theorem provers like Agda.
Support macros/templating/morphing? If you use template haskell. This is an optional extension of the language however, so most libraries don't use macros. I haven't used template haskell myself so i can't comment on if it's any good.
Has decent library support? The standard library is not bad. There is also Hackage, an open repository of Haskell libraries a bit in the style of CPAN.
Additionally, it sounds like you already know a lot of imperative/object oriented languages. IMHO if you learn another one of those langs. it will probably be a slightly different permutation of features you've already seen somewhere else. Adding another programming paradigm like functional programming to your toolbox will probably be a better learning experience. Though I guess whether that's an advantage or not depends on if you want to learn new things or be productive quickly.
Common Lisp fits: there is an optional typing, efficient native compilation is available, powerful REPL makes it a perfect choice for scripting, and there is a powerful macro metaprogramming.
OCaml fits as well, with CamlP4 for metaprogramming.
Scala? It does run scripts, although they are compiled (transparently) first. I'm not sure what you mean by code morphing etc, but it's pretty good for DSLs. It meets all your other requirements - compiled as much as Java is, strongly typed, and has a reasonable number of its own libraries as well as all of Java's. I'm still a beginner with it, but I like it so far.
In my reading on dynamic and static typing, I keep coming up against the assumption that statically typed languages are compiled, while dynamically typed languages are interpreted. I know that in general this is true, but I'm interested in the exceptions.
I'd really like someone to not only give some examples of these exceptions, but try to explain why it was decided that these languages should work in this way.
Here's a list of a few interesting systems. It is not exhaustive!
Dynamically typed and compiled
The Gambit Scheme compiler, Chez Scheme, Will Clinger's Larceny Scheme compiler, the Bigloo Scheme compiler, and probably many others.
Why?
Lots of people really like Scheme. Programs as data, good macro system, 35 years of development, big community. But they want performance. Hence, a number of good native-code compilers—Chez Scheme is even a successful commercial product (interpreted bytecodes are free; native codes you pay for).
The LuaJIT just-in-time compiler for Lua.
Why?
To show it could be done. And then, people started to like getting 3x speedup on their Lua programs. Lua is in a lot of games, where performance matters, plus it's creeping into other products too. 70% of the code in Adobe Lightroom is Lua.
The iconc Icon-to-C compiler.
Why?
The fifty people who used it loved Icon. Totally unusual evaluation model, the most innovative (and in my opinion, best) string-processing system ever designed. But that evaluation model was really expensive, especially on late-1980s computers. By compiling Icon to C, the Icon Project made it possible for big Icon programs to run in fewer hours.
Conclusion: people first develop an attachment to a dynamically typed language, and probably a significant code base. Eventually, the community spits out a native-code compiler so that you can get better performance and solve bigger problems.
Statically Typed and Interpreted
This category is less common, but...
Objective Caml. Dialect of ML, vehicle for lots of innovative experiments in language design.
Why?
Very portable system and very fast compilation times. People like both properties, so the new language-design ideas are desseminated widely.
Moscow ML. Standard ML with a few extra features of the modules system.
Why?
Portable, fast compilation times, easy to make an interactive read/eval/print loop. Became a popular teaching compiler.
C-Terp. An old product, I think maybe from Gimpel Software. Saber C—a product I don't think you can buy any more.
Why?
Debugging. Especially, debugging on 1980s hardware under MS-DOS. For very little resources, you could get really good help debugging C code on very limited hardware (think: 4.77MHz processor with an 8-bit bus, 640K of RAM fully loaded). Nearly impossible to get a good visual debugger for native-compiled code, but with the interpreter, fairly easy.
UCSD Pascal—the system that made "P-code" a household word.
Why?
Teachers liked Niklaus Wirth's language design, and the compiler could run on very small machines. Wirth's clean design and the UCSD P-system made an unbeatable combination, and Pascal was the standard teaching language of the 1970s. Younger people may find it hard to appreciate that in the 1970s there was no debate over what language to teach in the first course. Today I know of programs using C, C++, Haskell, Java, ML, and Scheme. In the 1970s it was always Pascal, and the UCSD P-system was a big reason way.
In case you are wondering, P stood for portable.
Summary: Interpreting a statically typed language is a great way to get an implementation into everybody's hands quickly. (It also had advantages for debugging on Bronze Age hardware.)
Objective-C is compiled and supports dynamic typing (certainly when calling methods via [target doSomething] syntax). That is, you can send any message to a target (using ordinary language syntax, without programming against a reflection API), receive only a warning at compile time that it might not be handled, and receive an exception only at runtime if the target doesn't respond to that selector (which is like a method signature); and you can ask any object (which can all be of static type id if your code doesn't know any better or doesn't care) whether it respondsToSelector: to probe its capabilities.
Java (a statically typed language) is compiled to JVM bytecode, which was interpreted on older versions of the JVM, whereas it now uses Just In Time (JIT) compilation, meaning machine code is generated at runtime. I also believe ML and its dialects can be interpreted, and ML is definitely statically typed.
Python is a dynamic language that has compilers.
See this SO question - Python - why compile?, for instance.
In general, compiling makes the program run much faster.
Actionscript has dynamic typing and compiles to bytecode.
And it even compiles right down to native machine code if you want to release a Flash app on the iPhone.
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
I'm looking for a programming language. It should be an easy language to learn, and should have a Garbage Collector. It should be a basic language with features like basic types (integer, boolean), arrays and etc, and I should write the framework.
It is for a game editor I want to write. The editor's designer will write the code of the UI in this programming language. The framework will be a 2D graphics and audio framework, and in the future it'll be 3D too.
I thought about the new Go language, but it doesn't have much support and theres no binding to OpenGL and etc.
Any ideas?
Thanks.
The obvious two are [C](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language)) or C++. However, [D](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_(programming_language)) is closer to Java and C# given that it has a garbage collector in the standard, as well as an alternative standard library that is fairly closer to Java than the C++ standard library. The downside with D is that they tools are not as mature as C++ or C and the community isn't as large.
The obvious solution though it to look down the list of compiled languages on wikipedia and see which you like the look of.
Well, that's a fairly broad question and without more specific requirements it is difficult to give a focused answer, but it sounds like C (or C++) would fit the bill for you. The languages you described all owe their syntax to C. C will compile to native code. C is basic language in that there is not much to learn beyond the basic syntax and it has all the basic primitives that you require.
Now that you've added the requirement of a garbage collected language, I suppose that you could try Go, but that language is not mature and there's always a risk there.
If you don't want to manage memory all by yourself like C or C++, you can try the new Go language. It compiles to native code (albeit for Linux and MacOSX only for now) and comes with a basic framework that can be easily replaced with your own framework.
It has a very active user base, so IMO it is possible to mature quickly.
You may want to look at Lua.
Lua is a relatively tiny language which manages to be capable and universal with just a few concepts. The BNF specification for the whole language fits easily on one page. It has numbers, booleans, tables and functions, and surprisingly that's all the datatypes it needs. It can even work in an object-oriented fashion.
There's a compiler, Luac, that compiles Lua to bytecode.
Lua is already being used as a UI programming language for games. Addons for World of Warcraft and a few other games are programmed in Lua. I believe Lua is a very good fit for this kind of task.
You want OpenGL? OK... http://luagl.wikidot.com/ is an OpenGL library for Lua.
Since we don't know what you want to do, I don't know what are the chances we success. Therefor, what about a language where you have to set the probability of your statement to fail :
Meet GOTO++.
Don't say "thanks you", it's on me.
Enjoy a challenge?
Try go.
Here's a tech talk by rob pike, and here is a discussion group: http://groups.google.com/group/golang-nuts/topics
.
C++ is Great, it's not scripting lang, so you don't even need a scripting host.