If the language you are interpreting is quite declarative then piggy-backing
on OCaml's run-time either by writing an interpreter or by compiling to
OCaml code will be a big advantage. Writing a VM with a run-time as
efficient as OCaml's in this context is a *lot* of work compared to writing
an int
List,
Thanks for your suggestions, here is a small summary of them with some
comments.
Options for interpreting a DSL
---
1 - Classical optimised interpreter
2 - Combinator / partial application based interpreter
3 - Emitting bytecode for any VM
4 - Em
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 02:58:30PM +0200, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
> Am Montag, den 24.10.2011, 14:46 +0200 schrieb oliver:
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 02:40:13PM +0200, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
> > > Am Montag, den 24.10.2011, 13:50 +0200 schrieb Diego Olivier Fernandez
> > > Pons:
> > > > Caml-lis
Am Montag, den 24.10.2011, 14:46 +0200 schrieb oliver:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 02:40:13PM +0200, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 24.10.2011, 13:50 +0200 schrieb Diego Olivier Fernandez
> > Pons:
> > > Caml-list,
> > >
> > >
> > > Xavier Leroy wrote
> > > > Compiling to bytecode is
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 02:40:13PM +0200, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
> Am Montag, den 24.10.2011, 13:50 +0200 schrieb Diego Olivier Fernandez
> Pons:
> > Caml-list,
> >
> >
> > Xavier Leroy wrote
> > > Compiling to bytecode is probably overkill.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think that writing my own byte
Am Montag, den 24.10.2011, 13:50 +0200 schrieb Diego Olivier Fernandez
Pons:
> Caml-list,
>
>
> Xavier Leroy wrote
> > Compiling to bytecode is probably overkill.
>
>
>
> I think that writing my own bytecode interpreter is looking for
> trouble. Same for compiling to an existing bytecode.
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 01:50:25PM +0200, Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons wrote:
> I was rather thinking of translating on-the-fly into Caml code and letting
> Caml do the job. Is that technically possible (rewriting a toplevel ? a
> CamlP4 grammar ?). If so guess I would have to license the Caml
Caml-list,
Xavier Leroy wrote
> Compiling to bytecode is probably overkill.
I think that writing my own bytecode interpreter is looking for trouble.
Same for compiling to an existing bytecode.
The language being a kind of SQL, most of the work is to properly execute
the comprehensions (= qu
On 10/24/2011 11:10 AM, Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons wrote:
> I have to write an interpreter for a datatype rich purely applicative
> language. I have already written a naive interpreter (like in programming
> languages class) and was wondering what where the options for writing
> something that w
Am Montag, den 24.10.2011, 11:58 +0200 schrieb Gabriel Scherer:
> Even staying at the "interpreter" stage, you can probably improve your
> performance seriously by being careful about your implementation : use
> efficient data structure (what is your implementation of variable
> lookup?), avoid unn
Even staying at the "interpreter" stage, you can probably improve your
performance seriously by being careful about your implementation : use
efficient data structure (what is your implementation of variable
lookup?), avoid unnecessary allocation, use tail-recursive functions
where possible, etc. T
Caml-list,
I have to write an interpreter for a datatype rich purely applicative
language. I have already written a naive interpreter (like in programming
languages class) and was wondering what where the options for writing
something that would perform better while keeping it maintainable by
12 matches
Mail list logo
