Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Creating a language using only assembly language

speakerdeck.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: Creating a language using only assembly language

#41

Post by socceroos »

cbasoftware wrote: post #20

Ok. I'll toot my own horn. In ~1983 I wrote the first iteration of Sensible Solutions for O'Hanlon Computer Systems using MASM. Of course, it had to run in less than 64k. Basically, it was a VM that would run pseudo code. And, the compiler was written in ASM also. In 1985 I wrote TAS, again using MASM. Again, a VM. The language it compiled (in both cases) was written to create business accounting applications, which…

I've always had a soft spot for assembler code. I've been writing hobby kernels for almost a decade now ala Plan9 - haven't every really taken any of them far enough to be useful, but it's a rich journey of discovery. I love discovery.

Re: Creating a language using only assembly language

#42

Post by claystu »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #40
Turing_Machine wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A real language built in assembler would be headaches" Depending on what you consider a "real language", it's not that bad. I did a Forth in 80x86 assembler years ago, and it was reasonably easy and fun. (I did use the BIOS routines for keyboard/screen I/O...they were one character at a time, IIRC).

It does depend on the definition. I'd disqualify Forth as a real language, too. I've always considered it a cross-platform, macro assembler for an abstract, machine design. Like P-code was but more flexible. It's definitely interesting and useful but doesn't feel like a 3GL or even a full LISP. I'd see it as a bootstrap (firmware) or compilation target (eg BootSafe) of a high-level language. Cool that you assembled o…

Forth has an ANSI standard as a programming language. What more do you need? What features does a language require to make it a 3GL?

Re: Creating a language using only assembly language

#43

Post by [deleted] »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #40
Turing_Machine wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A real language built in assembler would be headaches" Depending on what you consider a "real language", it's not that bad. I did a Forth in 80x86 assembler years ago, and it was reasonably easy and fun. (I did use the BIOS routines for keyboard/screen I/O...they were one character at a time, IIRC).

It does depend on the definition. I'd disqualify Forth as a real language, too. I've always considered it a cross-platform, macro assembler for an abstract, machine design. Like P-code was but more flexible. It's definitely interesting and useful but doesn't feel like a 3GL or even a full LISP. I'd see it as a bootstrap (firmware) or compilation target (eg BootSafe) of a high-level language. Cool that you assembled o…

[deleted]

Re: Creating a language using only assembly language

#44

Post by nickpsecurity »

claystu wrote: post #42
nickpsecurity wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does depend on the definition. I'd disqualify Forth as a real language, too. I've always considered it a cross-platform, macro assembler for an abstract, machine design. Like P-code was but more flexible. It's definitely interesting and useful but doesn't feel like a 3GL or even a full LISP. I'd see it as a bootstrap (firmware) or compilation target (eg BootSafe) of a high-level language. Cool that you assembled o…

Forth has an ANSI standard as a programming language. What more do you need? What features does a language require to make it a 3GL?

Hmm. I was introduced to the term 3GL to mean languages such as ALGOL, PL/1, Fortran, Pascal, C, and so on. Substantially more structured or English-like than assembler. Most definitions say they take care of details unnecessary to writing the programming logic.

So, I just looked up the wikipedia article to find the same languages but also that anything above assembler is technically a 3GL. Even HLA is a 3GL by that standard. So, Forth is... at the lowest rung... a 3GL. By that standard, so are macro-assemblers with control flow and typing constructs. Personally, I think that definition is crap and we should reserve 3GL for languages that significantly raised abstraction like those I cited.

This is just a matter of opinion, though. Each will see it a different way and there's no right answer. That's what I've learned researching after your comment.

Re: Creating a language using only assembly language

#45

Post by agumonkey »

Jtsummers wrote: post #37
agumonkey wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, I remember numbered evaluators like lc-0 lc-1. Thanks anyway.

Possibly this: https://github.com/zlizta/LC ?

Arf, it was a blog post, and IIRC in sexp syntax. Good find anyway.

Re: Creating a language using only assembly language

#47

Post by graycoder »

vmorgulis wrote: post #21
iyn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the first time I see Urbit, looks interesting. Do you have some context about the project? Project homepage ( http://urbit.org/ ) doesn't seem to explain anything and Github page just describes the language.

The author is Curtis Yarvin ( https://vimeo.com/75312418 ). You can search also for "Moldbug". He has an old blog. He is also a very controversial guy with libertarian ideas. His project is very neat with distributed processes called "ships" or "submarines" with rights based on reputation. It's a little bit like Erlang processes but with an anti-spam security model.

Had a few subs a while back myself... :)

Re: Creating a language using only assembly language

#49

Post by AlexeyBrin »

diginux wrote: post #48

I wrote my own Lisp compiler in college using this as the foundation: http://schemeworkshop.org/2006/11-ghuloum.pdf

Thanks for this. Do you have a link to the extended version of the article mentioned at the end of the article. The provided link is dead now.
Post reply on HN