[M3devel] higher level m3cg?

[Daniel Alejandro Benavides D.]

Hi all:
in fact why not 'M3 as target language'

is not the chicken and egg problem here, who needs C,  LLVM, stuff like that (we eat our own stuff and that's all), why not M3 in AST and that's all, like JSON la Olivetti.
Olivetti tried to do that to compile and describe each node in the AST as an Object, we should explore the idea.

http://lostechies.com/evanhoff/2008/01/08/language-roots/

Besides look for the 7th paragraph (I admire every day DEC-SRC and Modula-3 ever more)

Thanks in advance

--- El mié, 22/8/12, Mika Nystrom <mika at async.caltech.edu> escribió:

De: Mika Nystrom <mika at async.caltech.edu>
Asunto: Re: [M3devel] higher level m3cg?
Para: "Dirk Muysers" <dmuysers at hotmail.com>
CC: m3devel at elegosoft.com
Fecha: miércoles, 22 de agosto, 2012 06:00


In fairness, doesn't "C as target language" work OK for Pascal (p2c)
and Fortran 77 (f2c)?


    Mika

"Dirk Muysers" writes:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0018_01CD7F9F.8021D180
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>    charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>*** A warning ***
>Norman Ramsey's opinion (in stackoverflow) on possible compiler =
>backends:
>
>Code generation is my business :-)
>
>Comments on a few options:
>
>  a.. CLR:=20
>
>    a.. Pro: industrial support=20
>    b.. Con: you have to buy into their type system pretty much =
>completely; depending on what you want to do with types, this may not =
>matter=20
>    c.. Con: Only Windows platform is really prime-time quality
>  b.. LLVM:
>
>    a.. Pro: enthusiastic user community with charismatic leader=20
>    b.. Pro: serious backing from Apple=20
>    c.. Pro: many interesting performance improvements=20
>    d.. Con: somewhat complex interface=20
>    e.. Con: history of holes in the engineering; as LLVM matures expect =
>the holes in the engineering to be plugged by adding to the complexity =
>of the interface
>  c.. C--
>
>    a.. Pro: target is an actual written language, not an API; you can =
>easily inspect, debug, and edit your C-- code=20
>    b.. Pro: design is reasonably mature and reasonably clean=20
>    c.. Pro: supports accurate garbage collection=20
>    d.. Pro: most users report it is very easy to use=20
>    e.. Con: very small development team=20
>    f.. Con: as of early 2009, supports only three hardware platforms =
>(x86, PPC, ARM)=20
>    g.. Con: does not ship with a garbage collector=20
>    h.. Con: project has no future
>  d.. C as target language
>
>    a.. Pro: looks easy=20
>    b.. Con: nearly impossible to get decent performance=20
>    c.. Con: will drive you nuts in the long run; ask the long line of =
>people who have tried to compile Haskell, ML, Modula-3, Scheme and more =
>using this technique. At some point every one of these people gave up =
>and built their own native code generator.
>Summary: anything except C is a reasonable choice. For the best =
>combination of flexibility, quality, and expected longevity, I'd =
>probably recommend LLVM.
>
>Full disclosure: I am affiliated with the C-- project.
>
>=20
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20120822/8990ab47/attachment-0002.html>