C interpreter in Lisp/scheme/python
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: Why warnings about unused keyword although (call-next-method)is used?
Next: Why warnings about unused keyword although (call-next-method) is used?
From: Paul Rubin on 14 Jul 2010 02:35 bolega <gnuist006(a)gmail.com> writes: > I am trying to compare LISP/Scheme/Python for their expressiveness... > Are there already answers anywhere ? > How would a gury approach such a project ? These two articles http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/~prechelt/Biblio/jccpprt_computer2000.pdf http://www.haskell.org/papers/NSWC/jfp.ps about language comparisons (Python is in the first but not the second) might be of interest. If you want to know how to implement C, there is a pretty good book by Hanson and Fraser about LCC, called "A Retargetable C Compiler". Basically a code walkthrough of a small C compiler written in C.
From: bolega on 15 Jul 2010 01:17 On Jul 13, 11:18 pm, geremy condra <debat...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:01 PM, bolega <gnuist...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 20, 9:31 pm, Richard Fateman <fate...(a)cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > >> Define Macro wrote: > >> > On Jun 13, 7:07 pm, bolega <gnuist...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I am trying to compare LISP/Scheme/Python for their expressiveness. > > >> >> For this, I propose a vanilla C interpreter. I have seen a book which > >> >> writes C interpreter in C. > > >> >> The criteria would be the small size and high readability of the code. > > >> >> Are there already answers anywhere ? > > >> Sure. Lots of texts on compilers provide exercises which, in one way or > >> another suggest how to write an interpreter and perhaps a compiler too > >> for some language. Anyone taking a course on compilers is likely to > >> have followed such exercises in order to pass the course. Some > >> instructors are enlightened enough to allow students to pick the > >> implementation language. > > >> Ask any such instructor. > > > Beware, he does not tell the readers the financial details. This is > > what he wrote to me by email. > > > <quote> > > I would be willing to meet with you here in Berkeley to educate you on > > these matters at a consulting rate of $850 per hour, with a minimum > > of 8 hours. > > > RJF > > </quote> > > He's Berkeley's former CS chair and was implementing lisp before > common lisp was a twinkle in anybody's eye. His time is valuable. > > Geremy Condra This makes some sense. He replied on the newsgroup in a lengthy post that there are sufficient resources out there giving hint that no one need help me out. Then I was called "lazy" in one email and tersely given JUST the last name of an author who has many books each many 100s pages, when I asked for a relevant book, as if i am a scholar in the field, although he did spend lots of words on irrelevant and unbeneficial things which diminished my enthusiasm. Now, I find out from you that he has/had a business concern or interest in a company that is writing/wrote lisp interpreter in C. Correct me if I am making an error. I dont want to think deprecatingly of any good soul but this is what i experienced.
From: bolega on 15 Jul 2010 01:26 On Jul 13, 11:35 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > bolega <gnuist...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > I am trying to compare LISP/Scheme/Python for their expressiveness... > > Are there already answers anywhere ? > > How would a gury approach such a project ? > > These two articles > > http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/~prechelt/Biblio/jccpprt_computer2000.pdf > http://www.haskell.org/papers/NSWC/jfp.ps > > about language comparisons (Python is in the first but not the second) > might be of interest. > > If you want to know how to implement C, there is a pretty good book by > Hanson and Fraser about LCC, called "A Retargetable C Compiler". > Basically a code walkthrough of a small C compiler written in C. I have decided to limit my goal to tyni LISP interpreter in C because its a smaller and simpler language.
From: Thomas A. Russ on 15 Jul 2010 13:25 [Newsgroups trimmed] bolega <gnuist006(a)gmail.com> writes: > I have decided to limit my goal to tyni LISP interpreter in C because > its a smaller and simpler language. Even easier would be to write a tiny Lisp interpreter in Lisp. It will still be instructive and will let you get going much faster. Or, if you prefer, you could try your hand at writing a Scheme interpreter in Lisp or Scheme. A great book for that is Abelson & Sussman's _Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs_. -- Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 15 Jul 2010 17:10
tar(a)sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes: > [Newsgroups trimmed] > > bolega <gnuist006(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> I have decided to limit my goal to tyni LISP interpreter in C because >> its a smaller and simpler language. > > Even easier would be to write a tiny Lisp interpreter in Lisp. It will > still be instructive and will let you get going much faster. Or, if you > prefer, you could try your hand at writing a Scheme interpreter in Lisp > or Scheme. A great book for that is Abelson & Sussman's _Structure and > Interpretation of Computer Programs_. And if you really want to have a C source, you can also write a tiny Lisp to C translator. ;; do the proper package definitions and shadowing. (defvar *c* *standard-output*) (defun generate-c-variable (name initform) `(progn ,(generate-expression initform) (format *c* "object* ~A= result;~%" name))) (defun generate-bindings (bindings parallelp) (if parallelp (cl:let ((temps (loop repeat (length bindings) collect (gensym)))) `(progn ,@(mapcar (lambda (var binding) (generate-c-variable var (if (atom binding) 'nil (second binding)))) temps bindings) ,@(mapcar (lambda (var binding) (generate-c-variable (if (atom binding) binding (first binding)) var)) temps bindings)) `(progn ,@(mapcar (lambda (binding) (generate-c-variable (if (atom binding) binding (first binding)) (if (atom binding) 'nil (second binding)))) bindings))))) (defmacro let (bindings &body body) `(progn (format *c* "{~%") (generate-bindings bindings t) ,@body (format *c* "}~%") (values))) etc... To begin with, you only need to be able to generate enough C from sexps, so that you can write your C code as sexp. And right away, you can write a couple of lisp macros to write C code at a higher level. Step by step, macro by macro you get closer to CL, while still generating C code. Soon you will have enough Lisp generable into C to translate your tiny lisp interpreter written in tiny lisp into C. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com |