On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:54 AM, <c...@lavabit.com> wrote: > I know nothing about compilers and interpreters. I checked several > books, but none of them explained why we have to translate a > high-level language into a small (core) language. Is it impossible > (very hard) to directly translate high-level language into machine > code? >
You might note that gcc does the same thing internally; its core seems to be inspired by S-expressions. (It's also somewhat lower level than GHC's core, but then C is itself lower level.) As for why: * It's a way to remove redundancy and simplify implementation. * Sometimes it's easier to rephrase a language feature in terms of another similar feature, instead of duplicating code or making that code sufficiently reusable to apply easily in multiple not-quite-identical places. * Sometimes it's because the language definition specifies a translation that describes the behavior of a language feature (see, for example, do blocks and automatically derived typeclasses in Haskell) and the simplest way to ensure compliance with the standard is to do the same translation in the compiler. * It can also be easier to apply high level optimization techniques; if you go straight from the highest level code to the lowest level, you are likely to miss optimization opportunities that are only revealed (or only sanely implementable) at intermediate levels. -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allber...@gmail.com ballb...@sinenomine.net unix/linux, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure http://sinenomine.net
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
