Well I guess thats really the million dollar question, "what am I looking to learn out of all this?". I guess Im sort of a bit lost when it comes to even that question, perhaps you could help me out there.
What I really constantly finding myself interested in is languages as a whole, not just the bytecode, or the compilation, but rather the entire language platform itself. It interests me to know just how people go about writing the languages that developers all over the world use. The most interesting Java Posse podcast that I have heard so far, (starting from around mid-late 2007) was the JVM lanugages summit episode where they talked a lot about different bytecode proposals, tail recursion, etc... so that gives me some indication that languages are where I want to focus some of my learning at this point in my life. So I said to myself that I want to write my own language on the JVM. But had no idea where to start, and hence this discussion... :) Mark, thanks for the link, Ill be sure to give that a read, looks like a very comprehensive article. On Jan 8, 3:32 am, Jan Goyvaerts <java.arti...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, it all depends of what you want to learn about of course: the > JVM bytecode or the creation of a DSL. In the former case it might be > a bit of an overkill to start learning about language parser > frameworks. If you keep your syntax simple and straightforward you can > quickly write your own basic parser and concentrate on the bytecode > generation. > > On Jan 7, 12:25 pm, Kram <mark.macum...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks all very much, strangely, I was for some reason expecting a > > whole heap of posts from people saying things like: > > > "You must create your own c++ compiler that does A, B and C" (is javac > > written in c++?) > > > But I guess not... thanks for the links so far! I really appreciate > > the help. > > > Mark > > > On Jan 7, 8:08 pm, "Jan Goyvaerts" <java.arti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Personally I don't know about Rats - but I would also advise to go for the > > > language parser approach. A structured approach towards implementing a > > > DSL. > > > I certainly recommend the Antlr book of Pragmatic Programmers > > > (http://www.pragprog.com/titles/tpantlr/the-definitive-antlr-reference). > > > > You could be the first to create a DSL with a feature we all use but is > > > provided by no language so far: Say "Hello World". ;-) > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot > > > <reini...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > Personally i advise using rats instead of ANTLR, but, ymmv. > > > > > On Jan 7, 3:16 am, RogerV <rog...@qwest.net> wrote: > > > > > I've been using ANTLR for my "little" language, SFig: > > > > > >http://code.google.com/p/sfig/ > > > > > > I've used flex/bison (GUN lex and yacc clones) in the past to roll a > > > > > XSLT parser and have very much liked working with ANTLR as a contrast. > > > > > > ANTLR by default is geared toward creating language parsers that > > > > > target the Java JVM, however, it can also target C/C++, C# .NET, > > > > > ActionScript3. (This turns out to be quite advantageous to my > > > > > particular language project.) > > > > > > I like that lexical definitions are rolled into the same source file > > > > > as the grammar. > > > > > > I like the ANTLR concept of optionally being able to devise a tree > > > > > grammar to process AST. I structured SFig in this manner. > > > > > > The first pass creates tree structure AST, and then a second pass can > > > > > be made over the AST to do actions. In ANTLR you actually encode a > > > > > tree grammar that looks very similar to the language grammar. > > > > > > For ultra simple languages with very minimalist purposes, doing a tree > > > > > grammar might be overkill, but it's a handy way to structure things > > > > > when you get to have a bit more complexity going on. > > > > > > Also, if you buy the ANTLR book, it has a section on doing byte code > > > > > enhancement, which is way to get introduced to messing with Java byte > > > > > code. > > > > > > Messing with ANTLR is bound to give inspiration for doing some > > > > > actually practical language tools - in addition to being a good > > > > > environment to learn language parsing with. > > > > > > --Roger > > > > > > On Jan 6, 3:43 am, Kram <mark.macum...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > For a while now, I've been wanting to get my hands dirty on Java and > > > > > > the JVM, by this is mean getting to know bytecode, and how compilers > > > > > > work, JIT, the JVM in general, etc... > > > > > > > So the best thing I figure to do is to write my own, very basic, > > > > > > language for the JVM. Even if it provides no real benefit to > > > > > > anyone, I > > > > > > would really like to give this a try. > > > > > > > Languages really interest me and any help on this topic would be > > > > > > greatly appreciated. > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, > > > > > > Mark --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
