> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:37 PM, Colin Barrett <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:32 PM, Amir Michail <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:21 PM, Colin Barrett <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I’d recommend you read >>> http://tratt.net/laurie/blog/entries/the_bootstrapped_compiler_and_the_damage_done, >>> which has a number of rebuttals to what you’ve said below. >>> >> >> That’s an interesting article but it doesn’t address the issue of whether >> compiler code is more like normal programming than compiler standard library >> code. > > Perhaps I don’t understand what you mean, but the article gives two good > reasons why compiler code is special.
Compiler standard library code tends to be very abstract and full of generics. Normal code isn’t like that. > The first reason is that we understand a lot about how to design a compiler, > much more than we understand about how to design other types of programs. The > second follows: > >> [C]ompilers are an atypical class of program. In essence, a compiler is a >> simple batch pipeline process. A program is read in and translated to a >> tree; a series of tree transformations are applied; and eventually one of >> those trees is saved out as some sort of binary data (e.g. machine code or >> bytecode). Most of the intermediate tree transformations calculate a >> relatively simple bit of information about the program and create a slightly >> modified tree based on it. A few calculations crop up time and time again, >> such as: maps from variables to scopes or types; and stacks to determine >> closures. Significantly, and unlike most programs in the real world, there >> is no interaction with users: the compiler knows all it needs about the >> outside world from the moment it is called. > > Personally, I think the main reason not to rewrite the Swift compiler is that > it would be a distraction from improving the Swift language and other > associated tools. > > -Colin > >>>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 4:41 PM, Amir Michail via swift-evolution >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Compiler code is probably more typical of what most programmers write than >>>> library code and so would be ideal for suggesting further language >>>> evolution ideas. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>> >> > _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
