On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Matt Fowles <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am confused... The fact that I don't use Janino's parser doesn't > theoretically stop me from bootstrapping the compiler. In fact, Janino's > parser is only useful if the language I am compiling is actually Java. If > my language goes > Foo -> Foo AST -> Janino AST -> bytecode > I can still get a bootstrapped system in the usual way (implement a Foo > compiler in Java, Well, yes, if I were willing to do that, but I'm not, for several reasons. So the Foo compiler is written in Foo and runs on a non-JVM Foo implementation, spitting out Java. When finished, it'll be able to compile itself, and then I can add JVM-specific calls to it, but I'll continue to generate Java and just call Janino internally to compile that into bytecode. Changing the compiler to construct a Janino AST instead of Java is a project for another day (and maybe another person, given the glacial speed at which I'm able to work on it). Given that, and given that Foo has gotos, I can use a much less complicated code generator if I can generate Java+goto instead of pure Java. So, gotos, pretty please? -- GMail doesn't have rotating .sigs, but you can see mine at http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/signatures -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en.
