Re: Is Forth suitable for writing compilers?
- From: Albert van der Horst <albert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Mar 2009 16:39:35 GMT
In article <20090330003505.136e6ad3.jethomas5@xxxxxxxxx>,
Jonah Thomas <jethomas5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<SNIP>
Forth-like languages are designed to make it easier to do one-pass
compilation without backtracking etc. By accepting some limitations on
syntax you make the compiler design much simpler, and the people who get
used to your syntax won't mind at all.
I have made a classical two pass assembler with labels from my
Forth assembler. This requires carnal knowledge of a Forth and
some creativity. Then it can be done with dozen definitions
and two dozen lines of comment.
If you want complexities of syntax that Forth doesn't provide, then you
need extra complexities in your compiler design too.
Of course. But it is limited, Forth is surprisingly flexible.
Groetjes Albert.
--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
.
- References:
- Is Forth suitable for writing compilers?
- From: Joel Reymont
- Re: Is Forth suitable for writing compilers?
- From: Jonah Thomas
- Is Forth suitable for writing compilers?
- Prev by Date: Re: Chuck Moore news
- Next by Date: Re: Chuck Moore news
- Previous by thread: Re: Is Forth suitable for writing compilers?
- Next by thread: Re: Is Forth suitable for writing compilers?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|