Thanks to Paul, Ian , and Kerry for your responses. I absolutely require additional knowledge of assembly and machine code for me to compile the final result and to take advantage of the different types of hardware the way I want/need to. I know I am a long way away, even with my books; yet, the final result even if it takes years, (although I doubt it should take that long once I have exhausted the documentation, as I learn pretty quickly) it will be worth it.
The purple dragon is what I am reading now, and the compiler design handbook is what I will be reading next. I am pretty sure I should be able to make my way through them in a few months; yet, I am very interested in what small-c has to offer too. I will definitely take a look at the haxe source when I am ready to learn ocaml. Any other advice about books, lists, or trends is appreciated. Thanks, Anthony Ian Thomas wrote: > You could do worse than take a look at the sources for both MTASC and haXe. > > MTASC is a compiler for AS2. > http://mtasc.org/ > > haXe is a compiler for... uh... haXe. But haXe is a very AS3-like > language (it has its roots in AS). > http://haxe.org/ > > Both are written by Nicolas Cannasse. > > Both are written in the functional programming language OCAML and are > lightning fast. A lot of people swear by functional languages for > compiler-writing these days; BNF-style rule-based parsing maps on to > functional languages much more naturally than on to OOP/procedural > languages. > > HTH, > Ian > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Kerry Thompson<[email protected]> wrote: > >> Anthony Pace wrote: >> >> >>> Can anyone recommend a good mailing list for compiler design for newbies? >>> >>> I have books on it, and I know the basics of how to perform tokenization >>> and lexical analysis; yet, even with study and practise, I am most >>> likely going to be considering myself a newbie in the compiler design >>> realm for at least a few years. Keep in mind that my assembly is very >>> rudimentary, and my machine code is even worse >>> >> I did some compiler work for Borland, but that was 15 years ago or more. >> Anybody remember Borland's Fortran compiler? No? I thought not. >> >> I don't know of compiler mailing lists, but I can tell you that you probably >> don't need assembly or machine code. We did the Fortran compiler in C (not >> C++), with very little inline assembly code. I don't know of anybody who has >> done machine code for 20 years or more. It is truly obsolete unless you're >> writing for some proprietary hardware. >> >> There is a school of thought that you ought to be able to write a compiler >> in its own language. I.e., if you're writing a C++ compiler, you would write >> it in C++. I don't know if that would apply so well to ActionScript, though, >> because of its speed. I would probably choose a language that compiles to >> machine code, like C++, rather than a tokenized language--you want that >> extra speed boost in your primary tool. >> >> Cordially, >> >> Kerry Thompson >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Flashcoders mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Flashcoders mailing list > [email protected] > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > _______________________________________________ Flashcoders mailing list [email protected] http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
