Really looking forward to this!
A much less involved language-building tutorial that's available now is Beautiful Racket.[0] Racket is a Scheme, but it's also specially outfitted to be a language workbench.
Show HN: Crafting Interpreters – A handbook for making programming languages
11–20 of 77 posts
Re: Show HN: Crafting Interpreters – A handbook for making programming languages
#12Another great-looking book on making dynamic languages. There's been some good ones recently, and this one looks like another good one covering how to make a basic, interpreted language. Some of us have written 1 or 2 dynamic, interpreted languages, feel pretty comfortable with those concepts, and are interested in transiting to more advanced, static type systems and writing a good type checker. Anyone up for writing…
> 20-30 year-old textbooks
I assume you're talking about something like "Modern Compiler Implementation in ML"? That book is still a good starting point, and once you get a basic implementation going you'll be in a good position to start learning about and implementing more advanced features. You'll end up teaching yourself as you figure out how to add features to your own codebase.
edit: fix title
Re: Show HN: Crafting Interpreters – A handbook for making programming languages
#13Another great-looking book on making dynamic languages. There's been some good ones recently, and this one looks like another good one covering how to make a basic, interpreted language. Some of us have written 1 or 2 dynamic, interpreted languages, feel pretty comfortable with those concepts, and are interested in transiting to more advanced, static type systems and writing a good type checker. Anyone up for writing…
You definitely want https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/modern/ml/.
Re: Show HN: Crafting Interpreters – A handbook for making programming languages
#14Thank you so much for the book, please, continue! I am currently working on Scheme R5RS implementation in Java. It is a hobby project, but I'm really enjoying it. It is somewhat enlightening. Look forward to reading the Optimization chapter: I couldn't find much useful and practical info on that. I think it is quite easy to implement your interpreter, but it is really difficult (at least for me) to make it fast. Can…
For making an efficient Scheme implementation: most everything written by R. Kent Dybvig or his students. I'd start with his PHd thesis (Three Implementation Models for Scheme, specifically the stack-based part).
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~dyb/
(See also Lua's upvalues for a way to optimize closure variable access that's a bit simpler than his display closures).
Re: Show HN: Crafting Interpreters – A handbook for making programming languages
#15'Git ta werk. ;)
Re: Show HN: Crafting Interpreters – A handbook for making programming languages
#16Another great-looking book on making dynamic languages. There's been some good ones recently, and this one looks like another good one covering how to make a basic, interpreted language. Some of us have written 1 or 2 dynamic, interpreted languages, feel pretty comfortable with those concepts, and are interested in transiting to more advanced, static type systems and writing a good type checker. Anyone up for writing…
> more advanced, static type systems
Are static type systems more advanced than dynamic type systems? This sounds surprising, given how much more one can do with a dynamic type system.
Re: Show HN: Crafting Interpreters – A handbook for making programming languages
#17Looking forward to the chapters about the C interpreter. Meanwhile, it looks like both interpreters are available to study now in the Git repo. [1]
Re: Show HN: Crafting Interpreters – A handbook for making programming languages
#18Another great-looking book on making dynamic languages. There's been some good ones recently, and this one looks like another good one covering how to make a basic, interpreted language. Some of us have written 1 or 2 dynamic, interpreted languages, feel pretty comfortable with those concepts, and are interested in transiting to more advanced, static type systems and writing a good type checker. Anyone up for writing…
> more advanced, static type systems Are static type systems more advanced than dynamic type systems? This sounds surprising, given how much more one can do with a dynamic type system.
The quality of a type system isn't measured solely by what it allows you to do. After all, no type system at all would allow you to do anything and write as many bugs as you want-- not great, right? Instead, a better type system will let you make guarantees about your code, while still allowing correct programs to run. Can you guarantee there are no type errors? Can you guarantee arrays aren't accessed out of bounds? That sort of thing.
Re: Show HN: Crafting Interpreters – A handbook for making programming languages
#19Another great-looking book on making dynamic languages. There's been some good ones recently, and this one looks like another good one covering how to make a basic, interpreted language. Some of us have written 1 or 2 dynamic, interpreted languages, feel pretty comfortable with those concepts, and are interested in transiting to more advanced, static type systems and writing a good type checker. Anyone up for writing…
I'm starting a series of blog posts on making first a dynamic Lisp and then adding a type system to it, then type inferencer, etc. I'd be interested in what resources you found helpful and easy to read.
Re: Show HN: Crafting Interpreters – A handbook for making programming languages
#20Another great-looking book on making dynamic languages. There's been some good ones recently, and this one looks like another good one covering how to make a basic, interpreted language. Some of us have written 1 or 2 dynamic, interpreted languages, feel pretty comfortable with those concepts, and are interested in transiting to more advanced, static type systems and writing a good type checker. Anyone up for writing…
> more advanced, static type systems Are static type systems more advanced than dynamic type systems? This sounds surprising, given how much more one can do with a dynamic type system.
Basically, yes. You can do more with a dynamic type system than a static type system because you don’t need to (and actually, aren’t allowed to) prove that your code is consistent. Advancements in static checking and inference mean you can prove more things about your programs, so you don’t have to fall back on dynamic types and data structures so much.