Installing SmaCC
Locked
12
12
 
|
Hey guys I downloaded the latest Pharo 6.1 64bit for Windows and tried to install SmaCC through the catalog browser but it failed I did manage to install it following the instruction in the github repo but I see that I am missing most parser packages. The languages I am interested are Smalltalk (which is included) and C (if possible C++ too) cause I will be creating a new language which will be a cross between C and Smalltalk (very similar to smalltalk syntax but with the addtion of C types and no GC and dynamic typing and also a partial implementation of OOP that is quite diffirent). My goal is compilation of my language to readable C code so the ability to parse also existing C code is needed. Any help is greatly appreciated , thanks :) |
|
Dimitris If you download the latest Moose Suite 6.1, you will have Pharo 6.1 with lots of extra packages, including SmaCC. The SmaCC includes compilers for C, Smalltalk and Java, among others, but with little or no documentation. I am not a SmaCC expert, so I can’t say whether it will do what you want, but at least it will give you a start. Moose also includes PetitParser and PP2,if you want to try other parsing approaches. Of course, the Windows version is 32-bit only, for reasons explained elsewhere in this thread. HTH Peter Kenny From: Pharo-users <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Dimitris Chloupis Hey guys I downloaded the latest Pharo 6.1 64bit for Windows and tried to install SmaCC through the catalog browser but it failed I did manage to install it following the instruction in the github repo but I see that I am missing most parser packages. The languages I am interested are Smalltalk (which is included) and C (if possible C++ too) cause I will be creating a new language which will be a cross between C and Smalltalk (very similar to smalltalk syntax but with the addtion of C types and no GC and dynamic typing and also a partial implementation of OOP that is quite diffirent). My goal is compilation of my language to readable C code so the ability to parse also existing C code is needed. Any help is greatly appreciated , thanks :) |
|
|
thanks for the info Peter , will give it a try :) On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 7:35 PM PBKResearch <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
|
|
What about trying
Metacello new baseline: 'SmaCC'; repository: 'github://ThierryGoubier/SmaCC'; load This worked in Pharo 6.1 in November 2017 On 10/16/18, Dimitris Chloupis <[hidden email]> wrote: > thanks for the info Peter , will give it a try :) > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 7:35 PM PBKResearch <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> Dimitris >> >> >> >> If you download the latest Moose Suite 6.1, you will have Pharo 6.1 with >> lots of extra packages, including SmaCC. The SmaCC includes compilers for >> C, Smalltalk and Java, among others, but with little or no documentation. >> I >> am not a SmaCC expert, so I can’t say whether it will do what you want, >> but >> at least it will give you a start. Moose also includes PetitParser and >> PP2,if you want to try other parsing approaches. Of course, the Windows >> version is 32-bit only, for reasons explained elsewhere in this thread. >> >> >> >> HTH >> >> >> >> Peter Kenny >> >> >> >> *From:* Pharo-users <[hidden email]> *On Behalf Of >> *Dimitris >> Chloupis >> *Sent:* 16 October 2018 15:40 >> *To:* Any question about pharo is welcome <[hidden email]> >> *Subject:* [Pharo-users] Installing SmaCC >> >> >> >> Hey guys >> >> >> >> I downloaded the latest Pharo 6.1 64bit for Windows and tried to install >> SmaCC through the catalog browser but it failed >> >> >> >> I did manage to install it following the instruction in the github repo >> but I see that I am missing most parser packages. >> >> >> >> The languages I am interested are Smalltalk (which is included) and C (if >> possible C++ too) cause I will be creating a new language which will be a >> cross between C and Smalltalk (very similar to smalltalk syntax but with >> the addtion of C types and no GC and dynamic typing and also a partial >> implementation of OOP that is quite diffirent). My goal is compilation of >> my language to readable C code so the ability to parse also existing C >> code >> is needed. >> >> >> >> Any help is greatly appreciated , thanks :) >> > |
|
|
Refers to
https://github.com/SmaCCRefactoring/SmaCC which says This is the port for Smalltalk/Pharo 1.3, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Installing a Development version of Pharo for the latest Pharo (with no guarantees): Metacello new baseline: 'SmaCC'; repository: 'github://SmaCCRefactoring/SmaCC'; load On 10/16/18, H. Hirzel <[hidden email]> wrote: > What about trying > > > Metacello new > baseline: 'SmaCC'; > repository: 'github://ThierryGoubier/SmaCC'; > load > > This worked in Pharo 6.1 in November 2017 > > On 10/16/18, Dimitris Chloupis <[hidden email]> wrote: >> thanks for the info Peter , will give it a try :) >> >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 7:35 PM PBKResearch <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >>> Dimitris >>> >>> >>> >>> If you download the latest Moose Suite 6.1, you will have Pharo 6.1 with >>> lots of extra packages, including SmaCC. The SmaCC includes compilers >>> for >>> C, Smalltalk and Java, among others, but with little or no >>> documentation. >>> I >>> am not a SmaCC expert, so I can’t say whether it will do what you want, >>> but >>> at least it will give you a start. Moose also includes PetitParser and >>> PP2,if you want to try other parsing approaches. Of course, the Windows >>> version is 32-bit only, for reasons explained elsewhere in this thread. >>> >>> >>> >>> HTH >>> >>> >>> >>> Peter Kenny >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Pharo-users <[hidden email]> *On Behalf Of >>> *Dimitris >>> Chloupis >>> *Sent:* 16 October 2018 15:40 >>> *To:* Any question about pharo is welcome <[hidden email]> >>> *Subject:* [Pharo-users] Installing SmaCC >>> >>> >>> >>> Hey guys >>> >>> >>> >>> I downloaded the latest Pharo 6.1 64bit for Windows and tried to install >>> SmaCC through the catalog browser but it failed >>> >>> >>> >>> I did manage to install it following the instruction in the github repo >>> but I see that I am missing most parser packages. >>> >>> >>> >>> The languages I am interested are Smalltalk (which is included) and C >>> (if >>> possible C++ too) cause I will be creating a new language which will be >>> a >>> cross between C and Smalltalk (very similar to smalltalk syntax but with >>> the addtion of C types and no GC and dynamic typing and also a partial >>> implementation of OOP that is quite diffirent). My goal is compilation >>> of >>> my language to readable C code so the ability to parse also existing C >>> code >>> is needed. >>> >>> >>> >>> Any help is greatly appreciated , thanks :) >>> >> > |
|
|
yes i already said that i followed the instructions in the github repo On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:18 PM H. Hirzel <[hidden email]> wrote: Refers to |
|
|
Hi Dimitris,
Le 16/10/2018 à 19:39, Dimitris Chloupis a écrit : > yes i already said that i followed the instructions in the github repo Yes, by default that installation of SmaCC does not load all parsers (some of them are fairly large). However, most of them are in the downloaded repository, so you can load them independently. Otherwise, loading that way, should load everything: Metacello new baseline: 'SmaCC'; repository: 'github://SmaCCRefactoring/SmaCC'; load: #('Tools' 'Examples' 'Examples-Extra') Regarding your language question, I'd suggest two things: - Look at StrongTalk for a way to write Smalltalk with type declarations... - C parsers able to parse most strange C code one may encounter takes some work... Regards, Thierry > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:18 PM H. Hirzel <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > Refers to > https://github.com/SmaCCRefactoring/SmaCC > > which says > > This is the port for Smalltalk/Pharo 1.3, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. > > > Installing a Development version of Pharo for the latest Pharo (with > no guarantees): > > Metacello new > baseline: 'SmaCC'; > repository: 'github://SmaCCRefactoring/SmaCC'; > load > > On 10/16/18, H. Hirzel <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > What about trying > > > > > > Metacello new > > baseline: 'SmaCC'; > > repository: 'github://ThierryGoubier/SmaCC'; > > load > > > > This worked in Pharo 6.1 in November 2017 > > > > On 10/16/18, Dimitris Chloupis <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > >> thanks for the info Peter , will give it a try :) > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 7:35 PM PBKResearch > <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Dimitris > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> If you download the latest Moose Suite 6.1, you will have Pharo > 6.1 with > >>> lots of extra packages, including SmaCC. The SmaCC includes > compilers > >>> for > >>> C, Smalltalk and Java, among others, but with little or no > >>> documentation. > >>> I > >>> am not a SmaCC expert, so I can’t say whether it will do what > you want, > >>> but > >>> at least it will give you a start. Moose also includes > PetitParser and > >>> PP2,if you want to try other parsing approaches. Of course, the > Windows > >>> version is 32-bit only, for reasons explained elsewhere in this > thread. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> HTH > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Peter Kenny > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *From:* Pharo-users <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> *On Behalf Of > >>> *Dimitris > >>> Chloupis > >>> *Sent:* 16 October 2018 15:40 > >>> *To:* Any question about pharo is welcome > <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>> *Subject:* [Pharo-users] Installing SmaCC > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hey guys > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I downloaded the latest Pharo 6.1 64bit for Windows and tried > to install > >>> SmaCC through the catalog browser but it failed > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I did manage to install it following the instruction in the > github repo > >>> but I see that I am missing most parser packages. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The languages I am interested are Smalltalk (which is included) > and C > >>> (if > >>> possible C++ too) cause I will be creating a new language which > will be > >>> a > >>> cross between C and Smalltalk (very similar to smalltalk syntax > but with > >>> the addtion of C types and no GC and dynamic typing and also a > partial > >>> implementation of OOP that is quite diffirent). My goal is > compilation > >>> of > >>> my language to readable C code so the ability to parse also > existing C > >>> code > >>> is needed. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Any help is greatly appreciated , thanks :) > >>> > >> > > > |
|
|
Thank you Thierry , that was exactly what i was looking for :) On the subject of syntax, StrongTalk looks far more advanced compared to what I am aiming which is basically writting C code with Smalltalk like syntax. I am looking at this Which describes some really impressive features. So I am aiming only for source to source compiler and not implementation of complex systems for incremental compilations , optional type system etc. On parsing strange code that is not much of an issue cause the project I am working on has pretty reasonable code and will probably offer a way to inline c code in case the parser fail. In any case my goals are small , cause I dont have resources for complex implementations. Its also a language that will be designed solely for my needs and be offered open source for anyone else that may find it useful. In any case I am sure I will have many questions to ask :) I was looking into ANTLR , since the book I am reading on language design is using ANTLR but I rather implement this in Pharo. I used SmaCC when I was working for my Python bridge and I really liked it , mostly because it offers ready made syntax definitions for most popular languages. Which makes my life a lot easier. On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 9:45 PM Thierry Goubier <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi Dimitris, |
|
|
Have you looked at Ni? (I only read about it) cheers -ben On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 03:45, Dimitris Chloupis <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
|
|
The successor of Ni is 'Spry'
https://github.com/gokr/spry http://sprylang.se/ "Spry borrows homoiconicity from Rebol and Lisp, free form syntax from Forth and Rebol, the word of different types from Rebol, good data structure literal support from JavaScript and the general coding experience and style from Smalltalk. It also has a few ideas of its own, like an interesting argument passing mechanism and a relatively novel take on OO." --Hannes On 10/17/18, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote: > Have you looked at Ni? (I only read about it) > http://goran.krampe.se/2015/09/16/ni-a-strange-little-language/ > > cheers -ben > > On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 03:45, Dimitris Chloupis <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> Thank you Thierry , that was exactly what i was looking for :) >> >> On the subject of syntax, StrongTalk looks far more advanced compared to >> what I am aiming which is basically writting C code with Smalltalk like >> syntax. I am looking at this >> >> http://bracha.org/nwst.html >> >> Which describes some really impressive features. So I am aiming only for >> source to source compiler and not implementation of complex systems for >> incremental compilations , optional type system etc. >> >> On parsing strange code that is not much of an issue cause the project I >> am working on has pretty reasonable code and will probably offer a way to >> inline c code in case the parser fail. In any case my goals are small , >> cause I dont have resources for complex implementations. Its also a >> language that will be designed solely for my needs and be offered open >> source for anyone else that may find it useful. In any case I am sure I >> will have many questions to ask :) >> >> I was looking into ANTLR , since the book I am reading on language design >> is using ANTLR but I rather implement this in Pharo. I used SmaCC when I >> was working for my Python bridge and I really liked it , mostly because >> it >> offers ready made syntax definitions for most popular languages. Which >> makes my life a lot easier. >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 9:45 PM Thierry Goubier >> <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Dimitris, >>> >>> Le 16/10/2018 à 19:39, Dimitris Chloupis a écrit : >>> > yes i already said that i followed the instructions in the github repo >>> >>> Yes, by default that installation of SmaCC does not load all parsers >>> (some of them are fairly large). However, most of them are in the >>> downloaded repository, so you can load them independently. >>> >>> Otherwise, loading that way, should load everything: >>> >>> Metacello new >>> baseline: 'SmaCC'; >>> repository: 'github://SmaCCRefactoring/SmaCC'; >>> load: #('Tools' 'Examples' 'Examples-Extra') >>> >>> Regarding your language question, I'd suggest two things: >>> >>> - Look at StrongTalk for a way to write Smalltalk with type >>> declarations... >>> >>> - C parsers able to parse most strange C code one may encounter takes >>> some work... >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Thierry >>> >>> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:18 PM H. Hirzel <[hidden email] >>> > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Refers to >>> > https://github.com/SmaCCRefactoring/SmaCC >>> > >>> > which says >>> > >>> > This is the port for Smalltalk/Pharo 1.3, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. >>> > >>> > >>> > Installing a Development version of Pharo for the latest Pharo >>> > (with >>> > no guarantees): >>> > >>> > Metacello new >>> > baseline: 'SmaCC'; >>> > repository: 'github://SmaCCRefactoring/SmaCC'; >>> > load >>> > >>> > On 10/16/18, H. Hirzel <[hidden email] >>> > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>> > > What about trying >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Metacello new >>> > > baseline: 'SmaCC'; >>> > > repository: 'github://ThierryGoubier/SmaCC'; >>> > > load >>> > > >>> > > This worked in Pharo 6.1 in November 2017 >>> > > >>> > > On 10/16/18, Dimitris Chloupis <[hidden email] >>> > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>> > >> thanks for the info Peter , will give it a try :) >>> > >> >>> > >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 7:35 PM PBKResearch >>> > <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>> > >> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >>> Dimitris >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> If you download the latest Moose Suite 6.1, you will have >>> > Pharo >>> > 6.1 with >>> > >>> lots of extra packages, including SmaCC. The SmaCC includes >>> > compilers >>> > >>> for >>> > >>> C, Smalltalk and Java, among others, but with little or no >>> > >>> documentation. >>> > >>> I >>> > >>> am not a SmaCC expert, so I can’t say whether it will do what >>> > you want, >>> > >>> but >>> > >>> at least it will give you a start. Moose also includes >>> > PetitParser and >>> > >>> PP2,if you want to try other parsing approaches. Of course, >>> > the >>> > Windows >>> > >>> version is 32-bit only, for reasons explained elsewhere in >>> > this >>> > thread. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> HTH >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Peter Kenny >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> *From:* Pharo-users <[hidden email] >>> > <mailto:[hidden email]>> *On Behalf Of >>> > >>> *Dimitris >>> > >>> Chloupis >>> > >>> *Sent:* 16 October 2018 15:40 >>> > >>> *To:* Any question about pharo is welcome >>> > <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>> > >>> *Subject:* [Pharo-users] Installing SmaCC >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Hey guys >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> I downloaded the latest Pharo 6.1 64bit for Windows and tried >>> > to install >>> > >>> SmaCC through the catalog browser but it failed >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> I did manage to install it following the instruction in the >>> > github repo >>> > >>> but I see that I am missing most parser packages. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> The languages I am interested are Smalltalk (which is >>> > included) >>> > and C >>> > >>> (if >>> > >>> possible C++ too) cause I will be creating a new language >>> > which >>> > will be >>> > >>> a >>> > >>> cross between C and Smalltalk (very similar to smalltalk >>> > syntax >>> > but with >>> > >>> the addtion of C types and no GC and dynamic typing and also >>> > a >>> > partial >>> > >>> implementation of OOP that is quite diffirent). My goal is >>> > compilation >>> > >>> of >>> > >>> my language to readable C code so the ability to parse also >>> > existing C >>> > >>> code >>> > >>> is needed. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Any help is greatly appreciated , thanks :) >>> > >>> >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >>> >>> >>> > |
|
|
Those are interesting languages and probably better ideas than what I am thinking. However they are not what I am talking about. The language I am making is called "Magnatar" Magnatar is not Smalltalk, but it is a Smalltalk trojan horse. My main goals are 1) Create 100% readable C code, code that it looks like it was written
by a person and not automatically generated , leaving no room for
suspicion
2) Keep as close to Smalltalk as I can 3) Map to C syntax , one to one 4) Implement a loose variant of OOP 5) Powerful macro system for source manipulation without the need for header files 6) CMake integration (automate building which a headache in C/C++) Essentially I am trying to make a language that can allow a smalltalker to write C in Smalltalk and none noticing that he did. Hence why I talked about a trojan horse. I got the live coding part covered already but I would also like to use Pharo as the IDE of the language if I can. Also because of (3) Magnatar will be purely statically typed not because I have any love for static types but because it makes (3) far easier to accomplish. So Magnatar wont be a Smalltalk implementation neither a replacement for it. This means also that Magnatar will be a way to extend Pharo on low level. Writting readable C using Smalltalky syntax for extensions instead of just writting in C and then using Pharo's UFFI. Of course this will benefit those that want to squeeze much more performance out of Pharo. Magnatar also is not another language trying to take over the world but a language I will use to write C code for a project I am working on which is 3d graphics and I need the full performance. So in the end it will be a personal language. Unfortunately this means no dynamic types at all, no GC , no VM, no bytecodes, not intepretation of any sort, no image format. The only thing I am keeping will be live coding. Also OOP will be basically super simple, only c structs and c functions with a small API to allow you to "compose" objects similarly to prototype based OOP but I am considering some syntax for basic classes also. Again all these are under the prime goal of 100% readable idiomatic C code. The rule is simple "if it cannot easily map to C , it wont get in". So this is a highly focused language. I have not found yet a language that compiles to readable C code although there a lot of them that compile to unreadable C (nim, ECL, chicken scheme, etc). On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 8:37 AM H. Hirzel <[hidden email]> wrote: The successor of Ni is 'Spry' |
|
|
Le mer. 17 oct. 2018 à 08:44, Dimitris Chloupis
<[hidden email]> a écrit : > > Those are interesting languages and probably better ideas than what I am thinking. However they are not what I am talking about. > > The language I am making is called "Magnatar" > > Magnatar is not Smalltalk, but it is a Smalltalk trojan horse. > > My main goals are > > 1) Create 100% readable C code, code that it looks like it was written by a person and not automatically generated , leaving no room for suspicion > 2) Keep as close to Smalltalk as I can > 3) Map to C syntax , one to one > 4) Implement a loose variant of OOP > 5) Powerful macro system for source manipulation without the need for header files > 6) CMake integration (automate building which a headache in C/C++) > > Essentially I am trying to make a language that can allow a smalltalker to write C in Smalltalk and none noticing that he did. Hence why I talked about a trojan horse. I got the live coding part covered already but I would also like to use Pharo as the IDE of the language if I can. Also because of (3) Magnatar will be purely statically typed not because I have any love for static types but because it makes (3) far easier to accomplish. So Magnatar wont be a Smalltalk implementation neither a replacement for it. I believe you're trying to rewrite SLANG... Maybe you can reuse part of it. Making a better SLANG would certainly help, in more areas than one! Thierry > This means also that Magnatar will be a way to extend Pharo on low level. Writting readable C using Smalltalky syntax for extensions instead of just writting in C and then using Pharo's UFFI. Of course this will benefit those that want to squeeze much more performance out of Pharo. > Magnatar also is not another language trying to take over the world but a language I will use to write C code for a project I am working on which is 3d graphics and I need the full performance. So in the end it will be a personal language. > > Unfortunately this means no dynamic types at all, no GC , no VM, no bytecodes, not intepretation of any sort, no image format. The only thing I am keeping will be live coding. Also OOP will be basically super simple, only c structs and c functions with a small API to allow you to "compose" objects similarly to prototype based OOP but I am considering some syntax for basic classes also. Again all these are under the prime goal of 100% readable idiomatic C code. The rule is simple "if it cannot easily map to C , it wont get in". So this is a highly focused language. > > I have not found yet a language that compiles to readable C code although there a lot of them that compile to unreadable C (nim, ECL, chicken scheme, etc). > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 8:37 AM H. Hirzel <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> The successor of Ni is 'Spry' >> >> https://github.com/gokr/spry >> http://sprylang.se/ >> >> "Spry borrows homoiconicity from Rebol and Lisp, free form syntax from >> Forth and Rebol, the word of different types from Rebol, good data >> structure literal support from JavaScript and the general coding >> experience and style from Smalltalk. It also has a few ideas of its >> own, like an interesting argument passing mechanism and a relatively >> novel take on OO." >> >> --Hannes >> >> On 10/17/18, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > Have you looked at Ni? (I only read about it) >> > http://goran.krampe.se/2015/09/16/ni-a-strange-little-language/ >> > >> > cheers -ben >> > >> > On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 03:45, Dimitris Chloupis <[hidden email]> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Thank you Thierry , that was exactly what i was looking for :) >> >> >> >> On the subject of syntax, StrongTalk looks far more advanced compared to >> >> what I am aiming which is basically writting C code with Smalltalk like >> >> syntax. I am looking at this >> >> >> >> http://bracha.org/nwst.html >> >> >> >> Which describes some really impressive features. So I am aiming only for >> >> source to source compiler and not implementation of complex systems for >> >> incremental compilations , optional type system etc. >> >> >> >> On parsing strange code that is not much of an issue cause the project I >> >> am working on has pretty reasonable code and will probably offer a way to >> >> inline c code in case the parser fail. In any case my goals are small , >> >> cause I dont have resources for complex implementations. Its also a >> >> language that will be designed solely for my needs and be offered open >> >> source for anyone else that may find it useful. In any case I am sure I >> >> will have many questions to ask :) >> >> >> >> I was looking into ANTLR , since the book I am reading on language design >> >> is using ANTLR but I rather implement this in Pharo. I used SmaCC when I >> >> was working for my Python bridge and I really liked it , mostly because >> >> it >> >> offers ready made syntax definitions for most popular languages. Which >> >> makes my life a lot easier. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 9:45 PM Thierry Goubier >> >> <[hidden email]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi Dimitris, >> >>> >> >>> Le 16/10/2018 à 19:39, Dimitris Chloupis a écrit : >> >>> > yes i already said that i followed the instructions in the github repo >> >>> >> >>> Yes, by default that installation of SmaCC does not load all parsers >> >>> (some of them are fairly large). However, most of them are in the >> >>> downloaded repository, so you can load them independently. >> >>> >> >>> Otherwise, loading that way, should load everything: >> >>> >> >>> Metacello new >> >>> baseline: 'SmaCC'; >> >>> repository: 'github://SmaCCRefactoring/SmaCC'; >> >>> load: #('Tools' 'Examples' 'Examples-Extra') >> >>> >> >>> Regarding your language question, I'd suggest two things: >> >>> >> >>> - Look at StrongTalk for a way to write Smalltalk with type >> >>> declarations... >> >>> >> >>> - C parsers able to parse most strange C code one may encounter takes >> >>> some work... >> >>> >> >>> Regards, >> >>> >> >>> Thierry >> >>> >> >>> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:18 PM H. Hirzel <[hidden email] >> >>> > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > Refers to >> >>> > https://github.com/SmaCCRefactoring/SmaCC >> >>> > >> >>> > which says >> >>> > >> >>> > This is the port for Smalltalk/Pharo 1.3, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > Installing a Development version of Pharo for the latest Pharo >> >>> > (with >> >>> > no guarantees): >> >>> > >> >>> > Metacello new >> >>> > baseline: 'SmaCC'; >> >>> > repository: 'github://SmaCCRefactoring/SmaCC'; >> >>> > load >> >>> > >> >>> > On 10/16/18, H. Hirzel <[hidden email] >> >>> > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >> >>> > > What about trying >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > Metacello new >> >>> > > baseline: 'SmaCC'; >> >>> > > repository: 'github://ThierryGoubier/SmaCC'; >> >>> > > load >> >>> > > >> >>> > > This worked in Pharo 6.1 in November 2017 >> >>> > > >> >>> > > On 10/16/18, Dimitris Chloupis <[hidden email] >> >>> > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >> >>> > >> thanks for the info Peter , will give it a try :) >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 7:35 PM PBKResearch >> >>> > <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >> >>> > >> wrote: >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >>> Dimitris >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> If you download the latest Moose Suite 6.1, you will have >> >>> > Pharo >> >>> > 6.1 with >> >>> > >>> lots of extra packages, including SmaCC. The SmaCC includes >> >>> > compilers >> >>> > >>> for >> >>> > >>> C, Smalltalk and Java, among others, but with little or no >> >>> > >>> documentation. >> >>> > >>> I >> >>> > >>> am not a SmaCC expert, so I can’t say whether it will do what >> >>> > you want, >> >>> > >>> but >> >>> > >>> at least it will give you a start. Moose also includes >> >>> > PetitParser and >> >>> > >>> PP2,if you want to try other parsing approaches. Of course, >> >>> > the >> >>> > Windows >> >>> > >>> version is 32-bit only, for reasons explained elsewhere in >> >>> > this >> >>> > thread. >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> HTH >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> Peter Kenny >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> *From:* Pharo-users <[hidden email] >> >>> > <mailto:[hidden email]>> *On Behalf Of >> >>> > >>> *Dimitris >> >>> > >>> Chloupis >> >>> > >>> *Sent:* 16 October 2018 15:40 >> >>> > >>> *To:* Any question about pharo is welcome >> >>> > <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >> >>> > >>> *Subject:* [Pharo-users] Installing SmaCC >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> Hey guys >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> I downloaded the latest Pharo 6.1 64bit for Windows and tried >> >>> > to install >> >>> > >>> SmaCC through the catalog browser but it failed >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> I did manage to install it following the instruction in the >> >>> > github repo >> >>> > >>> but I see that I am missing most parser packages. >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> The languages I am interested are Smalltalk (which is >> >>> > included) >> >>> > and C >> >>> > >>> (if >> >>> > >>> possible C++ too) cause I will be creating a new language >> >>> > which >> >>> > will be >> >>> > >>> a >> >>> > >>> cross between C and Smalltalk (very similar to smalltalk >> >>> > syntax >> >>> > but with >> >>> > >>> the addtion of C types and no GC and dynamic typing and also >> >>> > a >> >>> > partial >> >>> > >>> implementation of OOP that is quite diffirent). My goal is >> >>> > compilation >> >>> > >>> of >> >>> > >>> my language to readable C code so the ability to parse also >> >>> > existing C >> >>> > >>> code >> >>> > >>> is needed. >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> Any help is greatly appreciated , thanks :) >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> |
|
|
Thierry you have done it !!! you just gave a very easy solution to my problems. Yeap Slang is quite close to what I am thinking, unfortunately Clement told me to stay away from it because the code is ugly and specially used for VM only. If I remember also correctly it does not generate readable C code either. But the idea as a concept is very close to what I imagine. As a matter of fact you mentioning Slang made I have an epiphany that I dont have to create a new syntax at all, instead I could use specific variables or methods to provide type annotation. Thus like Slang I can use regular Smalltalk code that avoids changing types but without the need for type inference (although I am not excluding this either). So yes I am definetly want to move to the direction that Slang goes so I can fully utilise the Pharo IDE and minise code that I have to write. So basically I am thinking write code as you always write in Pharo and either a) Have special dictionary variables in each method that provide static type annotations for the arguments of the methods, its return type and local variables b) Have special methods that provide such dictionaries seperately. Or probably both. This way I can write 100% Smalltalk code and use a very small compiler to read those dictionary variables for the type of the variables and functions/structs (essentially a class will be output for a C struct with pointers to functions for methods and variables for instance variables). Why invent a whole new language when everything I need already Pharo provides ? I could also use special variable dictionaries for all sort of things like generation of header files, generation of CMake files for automatic building. Also I like to use the way UFFI is doing C function signatures by using symbol arrays. So thank you all for inspiration it looks like all I need is Pharo AST methods (which I can from the AST packages) and SmaCC. So yeap looks like Magnatar will be a new Slang afterall, I will keep you posted. Also this also opens the possibility of autowrapping the generated c code back to Pharo through UFFI, so one can use C code as if its Pharo code. I can leverage the TalkFFI project that does this already. Seems all the pieces have fallen in their place. Keep the suggestions and advice coming, you guys are inspirational :D On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:07 AM Thierry Goubier <[hidden email]> wrote: Le mer. 17 oct. 2018 à 08:44, Dimitris Chloupis |
|
|
Hi Dimitris,
As someone currently learning to use Slang (i.e. not an expert), I've added my 2c below... On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 11:06, Dimitris Chloupis <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Thierry you have done it !!! you just gave a very easy solution to my problems. > > Yeap Slang is quite close to what I am thinking, unfortunately Clement told me to stay away from it because the code is ugly and specially used for VM only. If I remember also correctly it does not generate readable C code either. But the idea as a concept is very close to what I imagine. I've found the C code produced to be quite readable, but that is probably influenced by the fact that I have read the slang first. > As a matter of fact you mentioning Slang made I have an epiphany that I dont have to create a new syntax at all, instead I could use specific variables or methods to provide type annotation. Thus like Slang I can use regular Smalltalk code that avoids changing types but without the need for type inference (although I am not excluding this either). > > So yes I am definetly want to move to the direction that Slang goes so I can fully utilise the Pharo IDE and minise code that I have to write. > > So basically I am thinking write code as you always write in Pharo and either > a) Have special dictionary variables in each method that provide static type annotations for the arguments of the methods, its return type and local variables Slang uses method pragmas to define the variables types. This seems to work quite well. > b) Have special methods that provide such dictionaries seperately. > > Or probably both. This way I can write 100% Smalltalk code and use a very small compiler to read those dictionary variables for the type of the variables and functions/structs (essentially a class will be output for a C struct with pointers to functions for methods and variables for instance variables). Why invent a whole new language when everything I need already Pharo provides ? > I could also use special variable dictionaries for all sort of things like generation of header files, generation of CMake files for automatic building. > > Also I like to use the way UFFI is doing C function signatures by using symbol arrays. > > So thank you all for inspiration it looks like all I need is Pharo AST methods (which I can from the AST packages) and SmaCC. > So yeap looks like Magnatar will be a new Slang afterall, I will keep you posted. > > Also this also opens the possibility of autowrapping the generated c code back to Pharo through UFFI, so one can use C code as if its Pharo code. I can leverage the TalkFFI project that does this already. Seems all the pieces have fallen in their place. > > Keep the suggestions and advice coming, you guys are inspirational :D Do you intend that the Smalltalk code can be executed? This will likely increase the complexity quite a bit. In the VM simulation we end up creating a XSimulation subclass that provides the framework for executing the smalltalk code, e.g simulating functions that are only in C. There is also the problem of platform differences. Slang doesn't really handle them well (pragmas can be used to indicated that methods should only be compiled on certain platforms, and #ifdef type code can be used, but it isn't enough). It would be nice to have a class that provides cross platform functionality, and then platform specific classes as required. HTH, Alistair |
|
|
Hello Allistair I have used Slang only once and it was generating code that was indeed readbale but my aim is for more finer control over the output. Lets say I want import a specific C header file or I want a string to map to custom C type I created etc. So yes Slang is by no mean a bad tool at all its just is not designed with making source output that is undetectable as autogenerated by a human. But I will have to give it a more serious try because it may be closer than I initially thought. I am not against the usage of pragmas, and indeed are an excellent way to annotate stuff , my only concern is when I may want to annotate in place for some weird reason , but that may be doable with pragmas as well too. Smalltalk code that is 100% smalltalk should be able to execute , you mention however the execution of external C functions , problem is that in my case that code does not live in DLLs but in an executable so no I am not amaing to that level of execution. Also I have an easier solution for this too, when I made the CPPBridge, which is a Pharo library that allows the usage of C++ libraries from Pharo, I used a shared memory bridge to communicate back to Pharo giving the ability of both function calls and callbacks. If I really want to capture execution I can do it like this which is the exact opposite of what you do, instead of the VM capturing the executable it will be the executable capturing the VM if that makes any sense. This makes things far easier. As a matter of fact not only my CPPBridge does this it also allows to extend the pharo image file because it uses memory mapped files for the shared memory which like pharo image files are memory dumps. So there is a lot potential in that department. However my main goal is to use Smalltalk code execution to make sure the prototype works on a basic level, there will be a C cide in this project obviously which will act like a runtime that will provide live coding features. This is also a library I made in C that does this through the usage of DLLs that rebuilds and reloads dynamically. So I dont really need the VM to execute my code to check that is working cause the C compiler and the live coding runtime can handle this. I could even hook in the Pharo debugger, I have done this with my Atlas library that allows to use Python library from Pharo by sending the python error back to Pharo debugger where it triggers an error and the debugger pops to allow you to do your usual live coding magic and basically resends the code back to python. Because of my C livecoding library I can do this with C too. My only concern is how the C/C++ compiler reports errors because obviously it known that it kinda sucks on this. But hey I cannot make C better :D Generally speaking the tools I am making are not designed for general consuption but designed to solve my own problems. Of course I like to share them because there is always the chance for someone to find them useful as it has happened with Atlas for example. Plus as happened with Atlas one can take my code and adjust it to his or her personal needs. On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:04 PM Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi Dimitris, |
|
|
About your last part on platforms, I will be providing a way to inline C code so one can you use C macros to detect the platform and generate code accordingly. Or this could happen via a pragma too, it should not be an issue. This also a reason why I previously talked about an "in place" annotation and why specially named variables was my first choice instead of pragmas. I am also not a big fan of pragmas syntax which for me at least deviates from standard smalltalk syntax style. But as I said I am not against their usage at all. Generally because this is no an afternoon project obviously, I will be relying on C code inling at first for special corner cases and then I will implement them as annotations the more the project moves forward. On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:30 PM Dimitris Chloupis <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
|
|
Le mer. 17 oct. 2018 à 12:39, Dimitris Chloupis
<[hidden email]> a écrit : > > About your last part on platforms, I will be providing a way to inline C code so one can you use C macros to detect the platform and generate code accordingly. Or this could happen via a pragma too, it should not be an issue. This also a reason why I previously talked about an "in place" annotation and why specially named variables was my first choice instead of pragmas. I am also not a big fan of pragmas syntax which for me at least deviates from standard smalltalk syntax style. But as I said I am not against their usage at all. > > Generally because this is no an afternoon project obviously, I will be relying on C code inling at first for special corner cases and then I will implement them as annotations the more the project moves forward. Having a way to do the same as what asm inline is in gcc, but for hand-written C inside your Smalltalk derivative is cool: remap variable names, etc, so that your C generator handles all the interface between the inlined C and the surrounding Smalltalk. Same if you also add platform-dependent customisation for generation. Thierry > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:30 PM Dimitris Chloupis <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Hello Allistair >> >> I have used Slang only once and it was generating code that was indeed readbale but my aim is for more finer control over the output. Lets say I want import a specific C header file or I want a string to map to custom C type I created etc. So yes Slang is by no mean a bad tool at all its just is not designed with making source output that is undetectable as autogenerated by a human. But I will have to give it a more serious try because it may be closer than I initially thought. >> >> I am not against the usage of pragmas, and indeed are an excellent way to annotate stuff , my only concern is when I may want to annotate in place for some weird reason , but that may be doable with pragmas as well too. >> >> Smalltalk code that is 100% smalltalk should be able to execute , you mention however the execution of external C functions , problem is that in my case that code does not live in DLLs but in an executable so no I am not amaing to that level of execution. >> >> Also I have an easier solution for this too, when I made the CPPBridge, which is a Pharo library that allows the usage of C++ libraries from Pharo, I used a shared memory bridge to communicate back to Pharo giving the ability of both function calls and callbacks. If I really want to capture execution I can do it like this which is the exact opposite of what you do, instead of the VM capturing the executable it will be the executable capturing the VM if that makes any sense. This makes things far easier. As a matter of fact not only my CPPBridge does this it also allows to extend the pharo image file because it uses memory mapped files for the shared memory which like pharo image files are memory dumps. So there is a lot potential in that department. >> >> However my main goal is to use Smalltalk code execution to make sure the prototype works on a basic level, there will be a C cide in this project obviously which will act like a runtime that will provide live coding features. This is also a library I made in C that does this through the usage of DLLs that rebuilds and reloads dynamically. >> >> So I dont really need the VM to execute my code to check that is working cause the C compiler and the live coding runtime can handle this. I could even hook in the Pharo debugger, I have done this with my Atlas library that allows to use Python library from Pharo by sending the python error back to Pharo debugger where it triggers an error and the debugger pops to allow you to do your usual live coding magic and basically resends the code back to python. Because of my C livecoding library I can do this with C too. My only concern is how the C/C++ compiler reports errors because obviously it known that it kinda sucks on this. But hey I cannot make C better :D >> >> Generally speaking the tools I am making are not designed for general consuption but designed to solve my own problems. Of course I like to share them because there is always the chance for someone to find them useful as it has happened with Atlas for example. Plus as happened with Atlas one can take my code and adjust it to his or her personal needs. >> >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:04 PM Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Dimitris, >>> >>> As someone currently learning to use Slang (i.e. not an expert), I've >>> added my 2c below... >>> >>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 11:06, Dimitris Chloupis <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> > >>> > Thierry you have done it !!! you just gave a very easy solution to my problems. >>> > >>> > Yeap Slang is quite close to what I am thinking, unfortunately Clement told me to stay away from it because the code is ugly and specially used for VM only. If I remember also correctly it does not generate readable C code either. But the idea as a concept is very close to what I imagine. >>> >>> I've found the C code produced to be quite readable, but that is >>> probably influenced by the fact that I have read the slang first. >>> >>> >>> > As a matter of fact you mentioning Slang made I have an epiphany that I dont have to create a new syntax at all, instead I could use specific variables or methods to provide type annotation. Thus like Slang I can use regular Smalltalk code that avoids changing types but without the need for type inference (although I am not excluding this either). >>> > >>> > So yes I am definetly want to move to the direction that Slang goes so I can fully utilise the Pharo IDE and minise code that I have to write. >>> > >>> > So basically I am thinking write code as you always write in Pharo and either >>> > a) Have special dictionary variables in each method that provide static type annotations for the arguments of the methods, its return type and local variables >>> >>> Slang uses method pragmas to define the variables types. This seems >>> to work quite well. >>> >>> >>> > b) Have special methods that provide such dictionaries seperately. >>> > >>> > Or probably both. This way I can write 100% Smalltalk code and use a very small compiler to read those dictionary variables for the type of the variables and functions/structs (essentially a class will be output for a C struct with pointers to functions for methods and variables for instance variables). Why invent a whole new language when everything I need already Pharo provides ? >>> > I could also use special variable dictionaries for all sort of things like generation of header files, generation of CMake files for automatic building. >>> > >>> > Also I like to use the way UFFI is doing C function signatures by using symbol arrays. >>> > >>> > So thank you all for inspiration it looks like all I need is Pharo AST methods (which I can from the AST packages) and SmaCC. >>> > So yeap looks like Magnatar will be a new Slang afterall, I will keep you posted. >>> > >>> > Also this also opens the possibility of autowrapping the generated c code back to Pharo through UFFI, so one can use C code as if its Pharo code. I can leverage the TalkFFI project that does this already. Seems all the pieces have fallen in their place. >>> > >>> > Keep the suggestions and advice coming, you guys are inspirational :D >>> >>> Do you intend that the Smalltalk code can be executed? This will >>> likely increase the complexity quite a bit. In the VM simulation we >>> end up creating a XSimulation subclass that provides the framework for >>> executing the smalltalk code, e.g simulating functions that are only >>> in C. >>> >>> There is also the problem of platform differences. Slang doesn't >>> really handle them well (pragmas can be used to indicated that methods >>> should only be compiled on certain platforms, and #ifdef type code can >>> be used, but it isn't enough). It would be nice to have a class that >>> provides cross platform functionality, and then platform specific >>> classes as required. >>> >>> HTH, >>> Alistair >>> |
|
|
there will be no remap of variable names, this is a strict compiler if you can even call it a compiler. Your variable names will stay exactly the same in the C side , a concern here was that Pharo would not allow to have names like "my_personal_function". All the praise to Pharo it actually allows for such naming for methods. So no this is going to be a very stupid compiler, there will be minimum amount of magic involved if not any at all and what you read in Smalltalk will be compiled exactly the same in C. I am now playing with RBParser for handling the parsing of the smalltalk code and I am impressed how flexible and elegant it is. Kudos to the devs behind it. Here is the begining of Magnatar exp := (RBParser parseExpression: 'Morph call_my_function'). sel := exp selector asString. classname := exp receiver name asString. Transcript open;clear. Transcript show: classname ; show:'.' ; show:sel;show:'()';cr. Damn that was too easy :D On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:06 PM Thierry Goubier <[hidden email]> wrote: Le mer. 17 oct. 2018 à 12:39, Dimitris Chloupis |
|
|
Perhaps a C-syntax front-end for Lowtalk would be interesting? cheers -ben On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 19:37, Dimitris Chloupis <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
|
|
no I wont be introducing new syntax, I rather keep this 100% smalltalk.Also LowTalk uses GC which is a no go for me. this is the "syntax" I am considering so its fully compatible with Pharo ---------------------------------------------- SomeClass >> helloWorld: aMessage #(char* aMessage newMessage). printf := MagnetarImporter function: 'printf'. printf aMessage. newMessage := ' ...end of message'. prinf newMessage. #(struct result). #(int num1 num2 num3). #(struct end). #(result myresult). num1 := 1. num2 := 2. num3 := num1 + num2. #(myresult end). ^ #(myresult) SomeClass >> main #(include stdio) self helloWorld: 'Hello World !!!' ---------------------------------------- this will compile to C source code ---------------------------------------- #include <stdio.h> struct result { int num1; int num2; int num3; }; result helloworld(char* aMessage) { struct result myresult; printf(aMessage); char *newMessage = ' ...end of message.'; myresult.num1 = 1; myresult.num2 = 2; myresult.num3 = num1+num2; return myresult }; void main() { helloWorld('Hello World !!!'); } Of course this is a work in progress / first idea and if I can further streamline the syntax so much the better and of course the code could seperated to diffirent classes etc to follow the smalltalk way. On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 3:20 PM Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Users
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |