I am new to the world of the assembly and would like to know what parsing means in this context and the difference between parsing and compiling. Thank you.
A recognizer does verify that a sequence of symbols belongs or not to a given language. With the assumption that it terminates, it will terminate with a Boolean value: true (belongs) or false (does not belong).
A parser is a recognizer that also outputs the derivation steps that one can use to build a syntax tree.
Parsing is the process that the parser performs.
A translator does translate from one language to another.
A compiler is a translator that translates from a high-level language to a low-level language.
Compiling is the process that the compiler performs.
A decompiler is a translator that translates from a low-level language to a high-level language.
An assembly language is low-level language that uses mnemonics that are very close to a given machine language. It is the "human friendly" version of the machine language, often with some extras like comments.
A machine language is the language that is used to write machine code and that will be executed by the hardware. For example, the Central Processor Unit (CPU).
It seems to me that its more correct to say that the assembly language is compiled by an assembler to produce a machine code written in a machine language. The term assembled is also used in this case. I write compiled, because, the assembly languages express not exactly the machine language, but have extras, that I think is somehow "higher" level compared to the machine language.
I'm trying to understand why adding traits to Dart would cause the shape of objects in memory to change, and am therefore curious how it loads in code right now.
Dart is a dynamically typed language that generates its own machine language equivalents straight from source code with no intermediate byte-code step. There is no generic bytecode (like the JVM or llvm) and instead it is directly compiled into machine code.
I would add that despite compiling straight to machine code, the language itself is not designed in a way that would allow a C/C++ style compiler to effectively generate fast efficient code. This is by design as Dart seems to be an attempt to fill the gap between JavaScript and Java rather than the gap between Java and C/C++. Dart addresses many issues that make JavaScript hard to optimize most importantly typing of numeric variables.
There are some efforts to port the Dart environment to various platforms beyond Windows/Mac/Linux but I have yet to see an actual straight to machine language compiler for Dart. That doesn't mean they don't exist, I just haven't seen anything other than ports of the Linux Dart environment onto Beagleboard and other small Linux distros.
From the Dart FAQ
Q. Why didn’t Google build a bytecode VM targetable by multiple
languages including Dart? Each approach has advantages and
disadvantages, but we feel that in the context of Dart it made sense
to build a language-specific VM for the following reasons:
Google already works on a multi-language bytecode: LLVM bitcode in
PNaCl.
Even if a bytecode VM is specialized for Dart, a language VM will be
simpler and faster because it can work under stronger assumptions—for
instance, a structured control flow. These assumptions make the
implementation cleaner and optimizations easier.
A general-purpose bytecode VM would be even larger and slower, as it
generalizes assumptions and adds functionality that for Dart is dead
code: for example, multithreading with a shared heap.
No bytecode VM is truly general-purpose; they all make assumptions
that privilege some class of languages. A language VM leaves more room
to improve the VM and make deep changes to optimization of the
language. Some Dart engineers wrote an article talking about the VM
question in more detail.
A pretty good presentation on Compiling Dart to Efficient
Machine Code
I'm potentially interested in exploring a stack-based language like Forth (or Factor). What I'd like to see is how an application might be built from the ground up, step by step. The tutorials I've found are rudimentary and are not helping me to understand the bigger picture. It's confusing to think of how one might manage the stack when dealing with lots of parts.
I've always thought (maybe wrongly) that a good way to learn a language would be to use it to write a Roguelike game. I'm having trouble trying figure out how one would juggle a lot of things on a stack: a maze, dozens of creatures, treasures, character stats, etc.
In some sense, all languages are equivalent; you write a program by breaking a problem down into smaller pieces, then you code up those pieces and make them all work together. Forth has unusual syntax features, but it's still a programming language.
In fact, Forth places a great deal of power at your fingertips, much as Lisp does. In Lisp, using "macros", you can write your own control structures that are just as good as anything built-in; in Forth, you can do the same.
If you are interested in finding out more about Forth, I suggest you get the classic books Starting Forth and Thinking Forth by Leo Brodie.
Oh! Google just told me that both books are available free online now:
http://www.forth.com/starting-forth/
http://thinking-forth.sourceforge.net/
I'd point you to Factor rather than pure Forth; there are plenty of sample apps, GUIs, web apps, etc. If you're specifically interested in a web framework, look at Furnace.
Ultimately I don't understand the question; what does being stack-based have to do with getting anything done? Back in the old days it was the language of choice for embedded systems; I wrote everything from cereal boxing robots to calculators to... well, mostly everything.
I attempt to directly answer all of your questions at the bottom of this answer. But before that, here are 7 points or aspects of learning stack-based Forth, or generally about stack-based-languages, or ways to proceed with your goals:
1: Here is a key way to think about this: The stack is not the place where you keep your data -- just the way that you pass parameters from one function (or method) to another.
2: There is a "Basic Language" interpreter written in Forth. This would be one way to write an application in Forth -- write your own Basic interpreter (or type in one you find), then write the Roguelike game in the Basic language you just created.
3: If you go through the old "Forth Dimensions" magazine, several different object-oriented extensions to Forth were created and presented (including source code). Type one of those in, and use it to write your rogue-like game in one of those object-oriented ways. If you're still stuck, write it in your favorite C language -- C++, C#, or Java, and here's the key... write it as primitively as you can. Then take your own application apart -- each method, enum, constant, etc. constitutes part of a Domain Specific Language that you created in order to implement the game. Write down those parts, and figure out how to do it in Forth, ideally using only the idioms of Forth. You may have to work in Forth a while to get to that stage.
4: Learn how to program in assembly language, an assembly language for which a Forth exists that has an embedded assembler for the same microcontroller or CPU. This is where Forth really crushed the competition when computers were just becoming more widely available -- bringing a completely new microcontroller up, creating the BIOS and the OS. Once you've done this in pure assembly language, then go into the Forth that has the same assembly language and program the same application, but using the Forth assembler to build the building blocks (the DSL's) and then writing the BIOS and the OS in those DSL's. Forths happen to be both low-level and high-level at the same time, and the best-written applications are written in multiple DSL's, not in stack-based primitives. Once you've written in assembly language, when you try to learn Forth, you will find that it is easy -- the basic mechanisms are simple, but the combination of basic mechanisms is simple, powerful and elegant.
5: Look at either C# or Java, and realize that they are both based on Virtual Machines, which is a specific kind of DSL. But also realize that both Virtual Machines are stack machines, and the language that powers both of them are stack based languages. But if you program in Java, or if you program in C#, you really don't think at all about the stack foundation upon which you are running -- and that's a really good thing! You want to follow the same pattern. A. Realize what basic mechanisms / tools you need, B. Build the tools you need, C. Build your application with the tools you built. You may have to translate your own infix pseudocode to the postfix VM you've created. Do you need Object Orientation?--You can build it with Forth. Do you need multiprocessing?--You can build it. Do you need an Erlang kind of light multithreading?--You can build it. Do you need a Basic, a Pascal, a C#, a Java, a Lua?--You can build it. Build your Roguelike game in your favorite language, then perhaps a different language, then assembly language. Then build it in Forth.
6: At this link, there is a way to make a microprocessor that natively runs CIL (Common Intermediate Language -- the stack based language of both .NET and Mono, which used to be MSIL Microsoft Intermediate Language, before Microsoft Open Sourced the specification). You buy the IP logic block and then program it into an FPGA. Here is the Abstract of a paper that describes the object-oriented stack-based language and implementation of CIL:
Embedded systems and their applications are becoming ubiquitous and
transparent. Nowadays, the designers need to implement both hardware
and software as fast as they can to face the competition. Hence tools
and IPs became an important factor of the equation. In this paper, we
present a synthesizable core similar to the microarchitecture of
Tanenbaum's (2006) JVM processor. The core is an implementation of a
subset of Microsoft's CIL (Common Intermediate Language). We seek to
accelerate the development of embedded software by providing a
platform onto which the whole .NET framework (C#, Visual Basic.NET...)
(along with its object-oriented approach) could execute. We used a
Xilinx Virtex II Pro as the prototyping platform.
7: Go to the current work-place of Charles Moore, the father of Forth, GreenArrays, Inc. and look under Features for "Implements the colorForth instruction set", -- and you will find that he, too, has taken his virtual machine, having optimized Forth his entire life, and reduced it to an insanely fast 144 core microchip with a claimed capability of 100 BIPS. Here, you should be able to look at the "colorForth instruction set" and the description of it -- he has removed any fluff and bloat, and reduced it to an extremely spartan instruction set. We should learn from this genius before it is too late (he is advanced in years, and Covid19 currently threatens many of our patriarchs).
Below, I try to more directly handle each aspect of your question:
How would one code an application in Forth (or Factor)?
Same way as you would with any other application, learn the building blocks, and build the simplest thing that could possibly work, then grow it from there.
I'm potentially interested in exploring a stack-based language like Forth (or Factor).
There are a multitude of stack-based languages around. They seem to be the foundation, not only of most processors, but also of most virtual machines, as in Java and the JVM, and C# and the CIL.
What I'd like to see is how an application might be built from the ground up, step by step.
That's a great idea for a Forth book... Anybody game? I know there are a lot of Forth people out there, and because of Covid19, a lot of you are at home, too. What kink of application would you like to see? Just looking at FPC teaches a lot.
The tutorials I've found are rudimentary and are not helping me to understand the bigger picture.
There are higher level tutorials out there. But widen your search -- include JVM, CIL, and even LUA (because I think it has a VM, too). Write an app in Lisp. Then take the primitives you built in Lisp, and implement them in Forth, or Factor, or CIL, or JVM instructions.
It's confusing to think of how one might manage the stack when dealing with lots of parts.
That's why I said that you should learn an assembly language -- because most stack-based languages are a micro-step up from that. You have to learn the basic levers, springs, latches, and other primitive mechanisms out of which all of our software is ultimately made. But you only think in terms of stacks to make the primitive mechanisms -- once you have those made, in general, don't even touch the stack stuff -- think only in terms of the basic mechanisms, then build progressively higher layers, even progressing to object orientation, as exemplified in the CIL and JVM. The better applications are layers of implicit DSL's, each DSL targeted at a step up from the previous one. The layers are: Assembly-Language, CIL or other VM, BIOS, Operating-System, Library, Business-Language, Application. Most people only think of the Business-Language layer as a DSL, but every single layer is its own DSL, and really, every class, method, object, config-file, and specialized language, like HTML, CSS, JavaScript, etc. -- they are ALL DSL's, either explicitly (formally specified) or implicitly (created by the programmer as things are built.) Understanding gained from book "Code Complete" second edition -- read over and over is my suggestion.
I've always thought (maybe wrongly) that a good way to learn
a language would be to use it to write a Roguelike game.
Sure... but pick anything you like, really. But perhaps try getting an Arm-based Arduino, programming it, disassembling that, then writing your own assembly language -- then get a Forth for that Arm chip, and program it in that. Then implement your Roguelike game in the Arm-Forth.
I'm having trouble trying figure out how one would juggle a lot of
things on a stack: a maze, dozens of creatures, treasures, character
stats, etc.
Build your "Rogue" Domain-Specific-Language, make that into a VM, then implement the VM instructions first in a high level stack language, like CIL, then try to figure out how to do it in one of the low-level stack-languages. There are many flavors of object-orientation implemented in Forth -- spelunk the old Forth Dimensions articles
and some of the old Forth conference presentations to find them. Google, and the "Internet Archive", or Way-Back Machine, are your friends for this.
I have a task to convert COBOL code to .NET. Are there any converters available? I am trying to understand COBOL code in high level. I have a trouble understanding the COBOL code. Is there any flowchart generators? I appreciate any help.
Thank you..
Migrating software systems from one language or operating environment to another is always a challenge. Here are
a few things to consider:
Legacy code tends to be poorly structured as a result of a
long history of quick fixes and problem work-arounds. This really ups the signal-to-noise ratio
when trying to warp your head around what is really going on.
Converting code leads to further "de-structuring"
to compensate for mis-matches between the source and
target implementation platforms. When you start from a poorly structured base (legacy system),
the end result may be totally un-intelligible.
Documentation of the legacy architecture and/or business processes is generally so far out of
date that it is worse than useless, it may actually be misleading.
Complexity of COBOL code is almost always under estimated.
A number of "features" will be promulgated into the converted system that were originally
built to compensate for things that "couldn't be done" at one time (due to smaller memories,
slower computers etc.). Many of these may now be non-issues and you really don't want them.
There are no obvious or straight forward ways to refactor legacy process driven
systems into an equivalent object oriented system (at least not in a meaningful way).
There have been successful projects that migrated COBOL directly into Java. See naca.
However, the end result is only something its mother (or another COBOL programmer) could love, see this discussion
In general I would be suspicious of any product or tool making claims to convert your COBOL legacy
system into anything but another version of COBOL (e.g. COBOL.net). To this end you still
end up with what is essentially a COBOL system. If this approach is acceptable then you
might want to review this white paper from Micro Focus.
IMHO, your best bet for replacing COBOL is to re-engineer your system. If you ever find
a silver bullet to get from where you are to where you want to be - write a book, become
a consultant and make many millions of dollars.
Sorry to have provided such a negative answer, but if you are working with anything
but a trivial legacy system, the problem is going to be anything but trivial to solve.
Note: Don't bother with flowcharting the existing system. Try to get a handle on process input/output and program to program data transformation and flow. You need to understand the business function here, not a specific implementation of it.
Micro Focus and Fujitsu both have COBOL products that work with .NET. Micro Focus allow you to download a product trial, while the Fujitsu NetCOBOL site has a number of articles and case studies.
Micro Focus
http://www.microfocus.com/products/micro-focus-developer/micro-focus-cobol/windows-and-net/micro-focus-visual-cobol.aspx
Fujitsu
http://www.netcobol.com/products/Fujitsu-NetCOBOL-for-.NET/overview
[Note: I work for Micro Focus]
Hi
Actually, making COBOL applications available on the .NET framework is pretty straightforward (contrary to claim made in one of the earlier responses). Fujitsu and Micro Focus both have COBOL compilers that can create ILASM code for execution in the CLR.
Micro Focus Visual COBOL (http://www.microfocus.com/visualcobol) makes it particularly easy to deploy traditional, procedural COBOL as managed code with full support for COBOL data types, file systems etc. It also includes an updated OO COBOL syntax that takes away a lot of the verbosity & complexity of the syntax to be very easy to write COBOL code based on C# examples. It's unique approach also makes it easy to use all the Visual Studio tools such as IntelliSense.
The original question mentioned "convert" and I would strongly recommend against any approach that requires the source code to be converted to some other language before being used in a .NET environment. The amount of effort and risk involved is highly unlikely to be worth any benefits accrued. On the contrary, keeping the code in COBOL maintains the existing, working code and allows for the option to deploy onto other platforms in the future. For example, how about having a single set of source code and having the option to deploy into .NET as a native language and into a Java environment without changing a line of source code?
I recommend you get a trial copy of Visual COBOL from the link above and see how you can use your existing code in .NET without making any changes.
This is not an easy task. COBOL has fundamental ideas about data types that do not map well with the object-oriented .NET framework (e.g. in COBOL, all data types are represented in terms of fixed-size buffers) and in particular the way groups and arrays work do not map well to .NET classes.
I believe there are COBOL compilers that can actually compile .NET bytecode, but they would have their own runtime libraries to manage all of that. It might be worth looking at one of these compilers and simply leaving the legacy code in COBOL.
Other than that, line-by-line translation is probably not possible. Look at the code at a higher level and translate blocks of code at a time (e.g. at the procedure level or even higher).
There are a lot mechanisms how to convert COBOL to modern scalable environments, such as .NET or Java.
The first is a migration to a new environment with saving the existing COBOL code with some minor modifications (NET Microfocus COBOL);
The second is a migration to a new platform with simulation of COBOL statements and constructions. When there are some additional NET/Java libraries to simulate some specific COBOL logic:
ACCEPT goes to NETLibrary.Accept and so on.
The third approach is the most valuable one, when you migrate to "pure" NET/Java code with all the benefits of the new environment. It can be easily maintained and developed in the future.
However, the unique expertise and toolkits are required for this approach, and there are only a few players on the global market that can help you in this case.
If we are talking about automatic migration, the number of players decreases greatly and, unfortunately for you, you have to pay for the specific technologies and tools (like ours).
However, it is a better idea to invest your money in your future growth in the modern environment, than to spend your money on the "simulation" of old technologies.
Translations is not an easy task. Besides Micro Focus and Fujitsu there is also Raincode that offers a free version of Cobol that nicely integrates with Visual Studio.
Another thread had this quote
Erlang VM BEAM and HiPE is written mostly in C.
Linked-in drivers are written mostly in C. (They are plugged to VM
and serves communication with outside
world.)
I've read some opinions that Ada's strong typing, modularity, run-time checking, parallel processing etc. etc. are better than that of C.
Would Erlang compiled using Ada be noticably better or worse than the Erlang made with C?
Just a hypothetical Q.
Normally I'd throw a bunch of weasel-words at you on a topic like this, but it turns out this exact question has been studied (it's a .doc file. Sorry).
Rational had a compiler with a large amount of code in both languages, and a large amount of data compiled over several years on bug rates, fix times, etc. Out of curiosity, one of their engineers crunched the numbers.
The answer was "Development Costs of C Exceed Those of Ada". If you read past the summary title, you'd see that they figured writing the same code in Ada cost them about half what writing it in C cost.
I know that everyone reading this is anxious to poke holes in that conclusion. I was too. But they looked at darn near every angle I could think of in the report.
"Better" in what way? Better as in faster? Better as in less bugs? Better as in more portable? Better as in more readable? Better as in more extensible?
For any suitable definition of "better" arguments can be made either way. However, it is just about sacred writ that no compiled language is more portable than C. Thus, if one of your goals is to make your application highly portable, C is an excellent choice.
More people understand C than Ada. Writing erlang extensions might be much harder if it was written in Ada, simply because fewer people are conversant with the language.
C code can be highly performant, but I am aware of no comparisons between C and Ada w/r to compiler optimizations.
Ada's type checking might be useful, or it could be a real problem. One presumes that a VM does it's own type checking on the pieces that matter to it. The overhead of RTTC in Ada could impose a completely unnecessary burden.
Perhaps, but what language was your Ada compiler written in? Ada? What about the compiler that write your FIRST Ada compiler?
At some point when you are building software, formal semantics and software processes are much more important than what language something was coded in.