I'm developing an application that parses Cobol programs. In these programs some respect the traditional coding style (programm text from column 8 to 72), and some are newer and don't follow this style.
In my application I need to determine the coding style in order to know if I should parse content after column 72.
I've been able to determine if the program start at column 1 or 8, but prog that start at column 1 can also follow the rule of comments after column 72.
So I'm trying to find rules that will allow me to determine if texts after column 72 are comments or valid code.
I've find some but it's hard to tell if it will work everytime :
dot after column 72, determine the end of sentence but I fear that dot can be in comments too
find the close character of a statement after column 72 : " ' ) }
look for char at columns 71 - 72 - 73, if there is not space then find the whole word, and check if it's a key word or a var. Problem, it can be a var from a COPY or a replacement etc...
I'd like to know what do you think of these rules and if you have any ideas to help me determine the coding style of a Cobol program.
I don't need an API or something just solid rules that I will be able to rely on.
I think you need to know the COBOL compiler for each program. Its documentation should tell you what conventions/configurations/switches it uses to decide if the source code ends at column 72 or not.
So.... which compiler(s)?
And if you think the column 72 issue is a pain, wait till you get around to actually parsing the COBOL itself. If you are not well prepared to handle the lexical issues of the language, you are probably very badly prepared to handle the syntactic ones.
There is no absolutely reliable way to determine if a COBOL program
is in fixed or free format based only on the source code. Heck it is sometimes difficult to identify
the programming language based only on source code. Check out
this classic polyglot - it is valid under 8 different language compilers. That
said, you could try a few heuristics that might yield
the correct answer more often than not.
Compiler directives imbedded in source code
Watch for certain compiler directives that determine code format.
Unfortunately, every compiler vendor uses their own flavour of directive.
For example, Microfocus COBOL uses the
SOURCEFORMAT directive. This directive will appear near the top of the program so a short pre-scan
could be used to find it. On the other hand, OpenCobol uses >>SOURCE FORMAT IS FREE and
>>SOURCE FORMAT IS FIXED to toggle between free and fixed format, different parts of the same program
could be formatted differently!
The bottom line here is that you will have to support the conventions of multiple COBOL compilers.
Compiler switches
Source code format can be also be specified using a compiler switch. In this case, there are no concrete
clues to go on. However, you can be reasonably sure that the entire source program will be either
fixed or free. All you can do here is guess. Unless the programmer is out to "mess with
your head" (and some will), a program in free format will have the keywords IDENTIFICATION DIVISION or ID DIVISION, starting before column 8.
Every COBOL program will begin with these keywords so you can use them as the anchor point for determining code format in the
absence of imbedded compiler directives.
Warning - this is far from fool proof, but might be a good start.
There won't be an algorithm to do this with 100% certainty, because if comments can be anything, they can also be compilable COBOL code. So you could theoretically write a program that means one thing if the comments are ignored, and something else entirely if the comments are treated as part of the COBOL.
But that's extremely unlikely. What's most likely to happen is that if you try to compile the code under the wrong convention, it will simply fail. So the only accurate way to do this is to try compiling/parsing the program one way, and if you come to a line that can't make sense, switch to the other style. You could also support passing an argument to the compiler when the style is already known.
You can try using heuristics like what you've described, but that will never be totally accurate. The most they can give you is a probability that the code is one or the other style, which will increase as they examine more and more lines of code. They could be useful for helping you guess the style before you start compiling, or for figuring out when the problem is really just a typo in the code.
EDIT:
Regarding ideas for heuristics, it's hard to say. If there were a standard comment sigil like // or # in other languages, this would be a lot easier (actually, there is, but it sounds like your code doesn't follow this convention). The only thing I can think of would be to check whether every line (or maybe 99% of lines, and not counting empty lines or lines commented with *) has a period somewhere before position 72.
One thing you DON'T want to do is apply any heuristics to the part after position 72. That is, you don't want to be checking the comments to see if they're valid COBOL. You want to check what you know is COBOL first, and see if that works by itself. There are several reasons for this:
Comments written in English are likely to have periods and quotes in them, so your first and second bullet points are out.
Natural languages are WAY harder to parse than something like COBOL.
The comments could easily have COBOL in them (maybe someone commented out the previous version of the line).
An important rule for comments is that they should never affect what the program does. If changing the comments can change how the program is compiled, you violate that.
All that in mind, my opinion is that you shouldn't use heuristics at all. You should always try to compile the program under both conventions unless one is explicitly specified. There's a chance that code will compile successfully under both conventions, and then you'll have two different programs and no way to tell which one is correct.
If that happens, you need to compare the two results (perhaps with a hash or something) to see if they're the same program. If they're the same, great, but if not, you'll need to force the user to explicitly choose a convention.
Most COBOL compilers will allow you to generate and analyze the post text manipulation phase.
The text preprocessor output can be seen (using OpenCOBOL for the example)
cobc -E program.cob
The text manipulation processor deals with any COPY ... REPLACING compiler directives, as well as converting SOURCE FORMAT IS FIXED (with line continuations, string literal concatenations, comment line removal, among other things) to the actual free format that the compiler lexical analyzer needs. A lot of the OpenCOBOL toolkits (Cross referencer and Animator, to name two) use source code AFTER the preprocessor pass. I don't think you'll lose any street cred if your parser program relies on post processed source code files.
Related
What is the benefit of using paragraphs and sections for executing pieces of code, instead of using a subprogram instead? As far as I can see paragraphs and sections are dangerous because they have an non intuitive control flow, its easy to fall through and execute stuff you never meant to execute, and there is no variable (item) scoping, therefore it encourages a style of programming where everything is visible to everything else. Its a slippery soup.
I read a lot, but I could not find anything related to the comparative benefit of paragraphs/sections vs a subprogram. I also asked online some people in some COBOL forum, but their answers were along the lines of "is this a joke" or "go learn programming"(!!!).
I do not wish to engage in a discussion of stylistic preferences, everyone writes the way that their brain works, I only want to know, is there any benefit to using paragraphs/sections for flow control? As in, are there any COBOL operations that can be done only by using paragraphs/sections? Or is it just a remnant of an early way of thinking about code?
Because no other language I know of has mimicked that, so it either has some mechanical concrete essential reason to exist in COBOL, or it is a stylistic preference of the COBOL people. Can someone illuminate me on what is happening?
These are multiple questions... the two most important ones:
Are there any COBOL operations that can be done only by using paragraphs/sections?
Yes. A likely not complete list:
USE statements in DECLARATIVES can only apply to a paragraph or a section. These are used for handling file errors and exceptions. Not all compilers support this COBOL standard feature in full.
Segmentation (primary: a program that is only partially loaded in memory) is only possible with sections; but that is to be considered a "legacy feature" (at least I don't know of people actually using it this way explicitly); see the comment of Gilbert Le Blanc for more details on this
fall-through, many other languages have this feature with a kind of a switch statement (COBOL's EVALUATE, which is not the same as a common switch but can be used similar has an explicit break and no fall-through)
GO TO DEPENDING ON (could be recoded to achieve something similar with EVALUATE and then either PERFORM, if the paragraphs are expected to fall-through, which is not uncommon, then that creates a lot of extra code)
GO TO in general and especially nice - the old obsolete ALTER statement
PERFORM statement, format 1 "out-of-line"
file state is only shared between programs when you define it as EXTERNAL, and you often want to have a file state being limited to a single program
up to COBOL85: EXIT statement (plain without anything else, actually doing nothing else then a CONTINUE would)
What is the benefit of using paragraphs and sections for executing pieces of code, instead of using a subprogram instead?
shared data (I guess you know of programs with static data or otherwise (module)global data that is shared between functions/methods and also different source code files)
much less overhead than a CALL is
consistency:
you know what's in your code, you don't know what another program does (or at least: you cannot guarantee that it will do the same some years later exactly the same)
easier to extend/change: adding another variable (and also removing part of it, change its size) to a CALL USING means that you also have to adjust the called program - and all programs that call this, even when you place the complete definition in a copybook, which is very reasonable, this means you have to recompile all programs that use this
a section/paragraph is always available (it is already loaded when the program runs), a CALLed program may not be available or lead to an exception, for example because it cannot be loaded as its parameters have changed
less stuff to code
Note: While not all compilers support this you can work around nearly all of the runtime overhead and consistency issue when you use one source files with multiple program definitions in (possibly nested) and using a static call-convention. This likely gives you the "modern" view you aim for with scope-limitation of variables, within the programs either persistent (like local-static) when defined in WORKING-STORAGE or always passed when in LINKAGE or "local-temporary" when in LOCAL-STORAGE.
Should all code of an application be in one program?
[I've added this one to not lead to bad assumptions] Of course not!
Using sub-programs and also user-defined functions (possibly even nested providing the option for "scoped" and "shared" data) is a good thing where you have a "feature boundary" (for example: access to data, user-interface, ...) or with "modern" COBOL where you have a "language boundary" (for example: direct CALLs of C/Java/whatever), but it isn't "jut for limiting a counter to a section" - in this case: either define a variable which state is not guaranteed to be available after any PERFORM or define one for the section/paragraph; in both cases it would be reasonable to use a prefix telling you this.
Using that "separate by boundary" approach also takes care of the "bad habit of everything being seen by everyone" issue (which is in any case only true for "all sections/paragraphs in the same program).
Personal side note: I would only use paragraphs where it is a "shop/team rule" (it is better to stay consistent then to do things different "just because they are better" [still providing an option to possibly change the common rule]) or for GO TO, which I normally not use.
SECTIONs and EXIT SECTION + EXIT PERFORM [CYCLE] (and very rarely GOBACK/EXIT PROGRAM) make paragraphs nearly unnecessary.
very short answer. subroutines!!
Subroutines execute in the context of the calling routine. Two virtues: no parameter passing, easy to create. In some languages, subroutines are private to (and are part of) the calling (invoking) routine (see various dialects of BASIC).
direct answer: Section and Paragraph support a different way of thinking about programming. Higher performance than call subprogram. Supports overlays. The "fall thru" aspect can be quite useful, a feature rather than a vice. They may be necessary depending on what you are doing with a specific COBOL compiler.
See also PL/1, BAL/360, architecture 360/370/...
As a veteran Cobol dinosaur, I would say asking about the benefit is not the right question. I used paragraph (or section) differently than a subprogram. The right question in my opinion is when to use them logically. If I can make an analogy, if you have a Dog java class, you will write Dog-appropriate methods within it. If there's a cat involved, you may need a helper class. In this case the helper class is the subprogram. Though, you can instead code the helper class methods inside the Dog class, but that will be bad coding.
In any other language I would recommend putting self contained functions into subroutines.
However in COBOL not so much. If the code is very likely to be used in other programs then a subroutine is a good idea. Otherwise not!
The reason being the total lack of any checks on the number type or existence of passed parameters at compile time. Small errors in call statements lead to program crashes at run time. Limiting the use of sub-routines and carefully checking the calling code for errors makes for a more reliable program.
Using paragraphs any type mismatch will be flagged at compile time, or, an automatic conversion will occur.
The goto statement is taboo at my work.
So the following question is born...
Is there a situation possible where a goto is the only valid solution?
Originally GOTO was added to Pascal for error handling, including inter procedural forms that Borland(/Embarcadero) never implemented (example: GOTOing from a inner procedure to the parent), just like Borland never implemented other inner function functionality like passing inner functions to procedure-typed parameters.(*)
In that way GOTO can be considered the precursor to exceptions.
There still some practical uses: The last time I checked, jumping out of a nested IF statement with goto was still faster in Delphi then letting the code exit from a nested if naturally.
Optimizations like these are sometimes used in e.g. compression code, and other complex tree processing code with deeply nested loops or conditional statements.
Such routines often still use goto for errorhandling, because it is faster. (exceptions are not only slow, but their border conditions inhibit some optimizations).
One could see this as part of the plain Pascal level of Object Pascal, just like C++ still allows plain C nearly completely.
(of course, since the optimized compression code in Delphi is only delivered in .o form, it is hard to find examples in the Delphi codebase. The JPEG code has some, but that is a C translation)
(*) Original pascal, and IIRC even Turbo Pascal doesn't allow prematurely exiting a procedure with EXIT. Same for CONTINUE and BREAK.
Is there a situation possible where a GOTO is the only valid solution?
I suppose it depends on what you mean by valid. I suppose you are asking if there exists a program that can only be written with the use of the goto statement. In which case the answer is that there is no such program. Delphi is Turing complete with or without the goto statement.
However, if we are prepared to widen the discussion to include other languages, there are situations where goto is a good solution, even the best solution. The scenario that most commonly comes to mind is implementing tidy-up and error handling in languages without structured exception handling. If you peruse the Linux source code you will find that goto is widely used. I expect that the same is true of the Windows source code.
Goto is very old. It predates sub-routines like functions and procedures! It is also very dangerous and can make your code less readable (to others, or to yourself a few months later).
In theory it's not possible to have a situation where goto is required. I won't repeat the theory about Turing tape machines here, but using selection and iteration, you can re-order the code so in all possible input values the same output comes about.
In practice though, it's sometimes 'handy' and 'better readable' to 'jump away' from the flow of code in certain conditions, and that's where Exceptions come in. raise breaks away from the current execution, and jump to the closest finally or except section. This is safer because they work cascaded, and provide a better way to handle the context in case of one of these border conditions. (And there's also breakand abort and exit)
GOTO is never necessary. Any computable algorithm can be expressed with assignment and the combination of IF...THEN, BEGIN...END, and your choice of WHILE...DO...END or REPEAT...UNTIL. You don't even need subroutines. :)
This is known as the structured program theorem.
For a proof, see the 1966 paper, Flow Diagrams, Turing Machines and Languages with Only Two Formation Rules (PDF) by Corrado Böhm and Giuseppe Jacopini.
Something like 15 years ago I used the goto statement in Delphi to convert one of Bob Jenkins's hash functions from C to Pascal. The C function has a switch() statement without breaks after each case, and you can't do that with Pascal's case statement. So I converted it into a bunch of Pascal labels and gotos. I guess you would still have to do it the same way with the newest Delphi versions.
Edit: I guess using gotos would still be a reasonable way to do this. Gets the job done, easy to understand, limited to a short block of code, not dangerous.
I encountered a problem while doing my student research project. I'm an electrical engineering student, but my project has somewhat to do with theoretical computer science: I need to parse a lot of pascal sourcecode-files for typedefinitions and constants and visualize all occurrences. The typedefinitions are spread recursively over various files, i.e. there is type a = byte in file x, in file y, there is a record (struct) b, that contains type a and then there is even a type c in file z that is an array of type b.
My idea so far was to learn about compiler construction, since the compiler has to resolve all typedefinitions and break them down to the elemental types.
So, I've read about compiler construction in two books (one of which is even written by the pascal inventor), but I'm lacking so many basics of theoretical computer science that it took me one week alone to work my way halfway through. What I've learned so far is that for achieving my goal, lexer and parser should be sufficient. Since this software is only a really smart part of the whole project, I can't spend so much time with it, so I started experimenting with flex and later with antlr.
My hope was, that parsing for typedefinitions only was such an easy task, that I could manage to do it with only using a scanner and let it do some parser's work: The pascal-files consist of 5 main-parts, each one being optional: A header with comments, a const-section, a type-section, a var-section and (in least cases) a code-section. Each section has a start-identifier but no clear end-identifier. So I started searching for the start of the type- and const-section (TYPE, CONST), discarding everything else. In flex, this is fairly easy, because it allows "start conditions". They can be used as various states like "INITIAL", "TYPE-SECTION", "CONST-SECTION" and "COMMENT" with different rules for each state. I wanted to get back a string from the scanner with following syntax " = ". There was one thing that made this task difficult: Some type contain comments like in this example: AuEingangsBool_t {PCMON} = MAX_AuEingangsFeld;. The scanner can not extract such type-definition with a regular expression.
My next step was to do it properly with scanner AND parser, so I searched for a parsergenerator and found antlr. Since I write the tool in C# anyway, I decided to use its scannergenerator, too, so that I do not have to communicate between different programs. Now I encountered following Problem: AFAIK, antlr does not support "start conditions" as flex do. That means, I have to scan the whole file (okay, comments still get discarded) and get a lot of unneccessary (and wrong) tokens. Because I don't use rules for the whole pascal grammar, the scanner would identify most keywords of the pascal syntax as user-identifiers and the parser would nag about all those series of tokens, that do not fit to type- and constant-defintions
Now, finally my question(s): Can anyone of you tell me, which approach leads anywhere for my project? Is there a possibility to scan only parts of the source-files with antlr? Or do I have to connect flex with antlr for that purpose? Can I tell antlr's parser to ignore every token that is not in the const- or type-section? Are those tools too powerful for my task and should I write own routines instead?
You'd be better off to find a compiler for Pascal, and simply modify to report the information you want. Presumably there is such a compiler for your Pascal, and often the source code for such compilers is available.
Otherwise you essentially need to build a parser. Building lexer, and then hacking around with the resulting lexemes, is essentially building a bad parser by ad hoc methods. ANTLR is a good way to go; you can define the lexemes (including means to pick up and ignore comments) pretty easily, especially for older dialects of Pascal. You'll need good BNF rules for the type information that you want, and translate those rules to the parser generator. What you can do to minimize work, is to cheat on rules for the parts of the language you don't care about. For instance, you could write an accurate subgrammar for assignment statements. Since you don't care about them, you can write a sloppy subgrammar that treats assignment statements as anything that begins with an identifier, is followed by arbitrary other tokens, and ends with semicolon. This kind of a grammar is called an "island grammar"; it is only accurate where it needs to be accurate.
I don't know about the recursive bit. Is there a reason you can't just process each file separately? The answer may depend on what information you want to know about each type declaration, and if you go deep enough, you may need a symbol table as well as an island parser. Parser generators offer you no help for this.
First, there can be type and const blocks within other blocks (procedures, in later Delphi versions also classes).
Moreover, I'm not entirely sure that you can actually simply scan for a const token, and then start parsing. Const is also used for other purposes in most common (Borland) Pascal dialects. Some keywords can be reused in a different context, and if you don't parse the global blockstructure, and only look for const and type in specific places you will erroneously start parsing there.
A base problem of course is the comments. Scanners cut out comments as early as possible, and don't regard them further. You probably have to setup the scanner so that comments are attached to the adjacent tokens as field (associate with token before or save them up till a certain token follows).
As far antlr vs flex, no clue. The only parsergenerator I have some minor experience in parsing Pascal with is Coco/R (a parsergenerator popular by Wirthians), but in general I (and many pascalians) prefer handcoded.
Do you use "hard wrapping" (either yourself or automatically by your editor) by inserting newlines into your source document at a certain line length, or do you write your paragraphs in one continual line and let your editor "soft-wrap" for you?
Also, what editor do you use for this?
Note: I'm interested in how you wrap lines in your TeX source code (.tex file, general prose), not how TeX wraps lines for the final document.
I recently switched to hard-wrapping per sentence (i.e., newline after sentence end only; one-to-one mapping between lines and sentences) for two reasons:
softwrap for a whole paragraph makes typos impossible to spot in version control diffs.
hardwrapped paragraphs look nice until you start to edit them, and if you re-flow a hard wrapped paragraph you end up with a whole bunch of lines changed in the diff for a possibly one word change.
Only wrapping per sentence fixes these two problems:
Small changes are comparatively easy to spot in a diff.
No re-flowing of text, only changes to, insertions of, or removal of single lines.
Looks a bit weird when you first look at it, but is the only compromise I've seen that addresses the two problems of soft and hard wrapping.
Of course, if you're working collaboratively, the answer is to use whatever the other people are using.
I use Emacs (with AUCTeX). After editing or writing a paragraph, I hit M-q to hard-wrap it. It also handles indenting items, and it also formats commented paragraphs. I don't like soft wraps, because they are visually indistinguishable from real newline characters, but behave differently.
I generally let my LaTeX editor softwrap the lines. I think part of it is due to the fact that I had some bad experiences with significant whitespace when I was first learning LaTeX, and part of it is because I don't like heavily-jagged right-margins when I'm editing the text file.
Depending on what os you use, i recommend winedt (windows) and kile (linux). Both of these soft wrap, and there is no need for hard wraps. (That is, i leave my paragraphs as long lines in the source) Latex sorts out line breaks in the output and when i read the source, i use my editor.
The only possible reason to use hard line breaks is to make it easier to find errors in the code (which the compiler indicates by line number) but they are generally not hard to find, if it's mainly text, errors are rare anyway.
Typically I have my editor insert newlines. That is, I try not to hit the "enter" key for a new line, but when the editor soft-wraps, it actually inserts a newline character.
I use vim to accomplish this, and I don't know if other editors have this feature or how they work. In specific, i use the wrapmargin feature.
I typically try to keep my lines of code (TeX or otherwise) at n-characters long for clarity and consistency. I tend to go with 80 characters, but that is up to you.
More vim-related line-breaking docs:
http://www.vim.org/htmldoc/usr_25.html
http://www.vim.org/htmldoc/options.html#%27textwidth%27
I tend to do hard-wrapping with TeX, but that's rooted more in my obsession with text formatting than any real gain of efficiency. One major thing that I don't like about soft-wrapping is that it tends (in my opinion, obviously) to make things harder to read by wrapping in semantically-random places.
Although I would prefer to use soft wrapping I end up using hard wrapping for one practical reason: all of my collaborators do the same. So, when I work on an article with someone it would be a big pain for me to soft wrap while the other person hard wraps. The second reason is that Emacs was until recently able to handle properly on hard wrapping. Emacs 23 which I currently use changes this but it will be a long time before everybody upgrades to 23 so I can sneak soft wrapped texts to them.
The way I actually use hard wrapping is to have auto-fill-mode turned on. Furthermore M-q is bound to LaTeX-fill-paragraph (in the AucTeX mode - but I don't remember if this is a standard binding or one of my bindings - I'm pretty sure it's the latter). Combining these two I manage to keep my TeX source more or less decently formatted.
By the way, I have heard the suggestion to always start a new sentence at the beginning of a line. In other words a period at the end of a sentence should be followed by a hard return. The benefit is that it works well with version control systems since changes to a sentence can remain localized. I think that this is in principle a nice idea but I have not managed to use it because of my obsessive-compulsive usage of M-q.
I use Kile under Linux with hard wrapping (called static word wrap in Kile) because apparently in my work environment everybody do like that. Soft wrapping makes much more sense to me, so if I could choose I would use that rather than hard wrapping.
I work in joe mostly. I from time to time press enter automatically, and if it doesn't look good I press auto-format (ctrl-k j).
Joe has autowrap modes, but I don't even bother.
I use Auctex with automatic line breaking switched off, and insert line breaks by hand. I avoid auto-formatting, since I want as few changes to where line breaks occur between edits to the document, which makes diffs less cluttered.
Using a smarter diff, one that doesn't care about tex-irrelevant whitespace, would be better, but that's the tool I use.
I like Will's suggestion of hard wrapping per sentence. I thought about it before, but I am fixed in my habits.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm building an application that receives source code as input and analyzes several aspects of the code. It can accept code from many common languages, e.g. C/C++, C#, Java, Python, PHP, Pascal, SQL, and more (however many languages are unsupported, e.g. Ada, Cobol, Fortran). Once the language is known, my application knows what to do (I have different handlers for different languages).
Currently I'm asking the user to input the programming language the code is written in, and this is error-prone: although users know the programming languages, a small percentage of them (on rare occasions) click the wrong option just due to recklessness, and that breaks the system (i.e. my analysis fails).
It seems to me like there should be a way to figure out (in most cases) what the language is, from the input text itself. Several notes:
I'm receiving pure text and not file names, so I can't use the extension as a hint.
The user is not required to input complete source codes, and can also input code snippets (i.e. the include/import part may not be included).
it's clear to me that any algorithm I choose will not be 100% proof, certainly for very short input codes (e.g. that could be accepted by both Python and Ruby), in which cases I will still need the user's assistance, however I would like to minimize user involvement in the process to minimize mistakes.
Examples:
If the text contains "x->y()", I may know for sure it's C++ (?)
If the text contains "public static void main", I may know for sure it's Java (?)
If the text contains "for x := y to z do begin", I may know for sure it's Pascal (?)
My question:
Are you familiar with any standard library/method for figuring out automatically what the language of an input source code is?
What are the unique code "tokens" with which I could certainly differentiate one language from another?
I'm writing my code in Python but I believe the question to be language agnostic.
Thanks
Vim has a autodetect filetype feature. If you download vim sourcecode you will find a /vim/runtime/filetype.vim file.
For each language it checks the extension of the file and also, for some of them (most common), it has a function that can get the filetype from the source code. You can check that out. The code is pretty easy to understand and there are some very useful comments there.
build a generic tokenizer and then use a Bayesian filter on them. Use the existing "user checks a box" system to train it.
Here is a simple way to do it. Just run the parser on every language. Whatever language gets the farthest without encountering any errors (or has the fewest errors) wins.
This technique has the following advantages:
You already have most of the code necessary to do this.
The analysis can be done in parallel on multi-core machines.
Most languages can be eliminated very quickly.
This technique is very robust. Languages that might appear very similar when using a fuzzy analysis (baysian for example), would likely have many errors when the actual parser is run.
If a program is parsed correctly in two different languages, then there was never any hope of distinguishing them in the first place.
I think the problem is impossible. The best you can do is to come up with some probability that a program is in a particular language, and even then I would guess producing a solid probability is very hard. Problems that come to mind at once:
use of features like the C pre-processor can effectively mask the underlyuing language altogether
looking for keywords is not sufficient as the keywords can be used in other languages as identifiers
looking for actual language constructs requires you to parse the code, but to do that you need to know the language
what do you do about malformed code?
Those seem enough problems to solve to be going on with.
One program I know which even can distinguish several different languages within the same file is ohcount. You might get some ideas there, although I don't really know how they do it.
In general you can look for distinctive patterns:
Operators might be an indicator, such as := for Pascal/Modula/Oberon, => or the whole of LINQ in C#
Keywords would be another one as probably no two languages have the same set of keywords
Casing rules for identifiers, assuming the piece of code was writting conforming to best practices. Probably a very weak rule
Standard library functions or types. Especially for languages that usually rely heavily on them, such as PHP you might just use a long list of standard library functions.
You may create a set of rules, each of which indicates a possible set of languages if it matches. Intersecting the resulting lists will hopefully get you only one language.
The problem with this approach however, is that you need to do tokenizing and compare tokens (otherwise you can't really know what operators are or whether something you found was inside a comment or string). Tokenizing rules are different for each language as well, though; just splitting everything at whitespace and punctuation will probably not yield a very useful sequence of tokens. You can try several different tokenizing rules (each of which would indicate a certain set of languages as well) and have your rules match to a specified tokenization. For example, trying to find a single-quoted string (for trying out Pascal) in a VB snippet with one comment will probably fail, but another tokenizer might have more luck.
But since you want to perform analysis anyway you probably have parsers for the languages you support, so you can just try running the snippet through each parser and take that as indicator which language it would be (as suggested by OregonGhost as well).
Some thoughts:
$x->y() would be valid in PHP, so ensure that there's no $ symbol if you think C++ (though I think you can store function pointers in a C struct, so this could also be C).
public static void main is Java if it is cased properly - write Main and it's C#. This gets complicated if you take case-insensitive languages like many scripting languages or Pascal into account. The [] attribute syntax in C# on the other hand seems to be rather unique.
You can also try to use the keywords of a language - for example, Option Strict or End Sub are typical for VB and the like, while yield is likely C# and initialization/implementation are Object Pascal / Delphi.
If your application is analyzing the source code anyway, you code try to throw your analysis code at it for every language and if it fails really bad, it was the wrong language :)
My approach would be:
Create a list of strings or regexes (with and without case sensitivity), where each element has assigned a list of languages that the element is an indicator for:
class => C++, C#, Java
interface => C#, Java
implements => Java
[attribute] => C#
procedure => Pascal, Modula
create table / insert / ... => SQL
etc. Then parse the file line-by-line, match each element of the list, and count the hits.
The language with the most hits wins ;)
How about word frequency analysis (with a twist)? Parse the source code and categorise it much like a spam filter does. This way when a code snippet is entered into your app which cannot be 100% identified you can have it show the closest matches which the user can pick from - this can then be fed into your database.
Here's an idea for you. For each of your N languages, find some files in the language, something like 10-20 per language would be enough, each one not too short. Concatenate all files in one language together. Call this lang1.txt. GZip it to lang1.txt.gz. You will have a set of N langX.txt and langX.txt.gz files.
Now, take the file in question and append to each of he langX.txt files, producing langXapp.txt, and corresponding gzipped langXapp.txt.gz. For each X, find the difference between the size of langXapp.gz and langX.gz. The smallest difference will correspond to the language of your file.
Disclaimer: this will work reasonably well only for longer files. Also, it's not very efficient. But on the plus side you don't need to know anything about the language, it's completely automatic. And it can detect natural languages and tell between French or Chinese as well. Just in case you need it :) But the main reason, I just think it's interesting thing to try :)
The most bulletproof but also most work intensive way is to write a parser for each language and just run them in sequence to see which one would accept the code. This won't work well if code has syntax errors though and you most probably would have to deal with code like that, people do make mistakes. One of the fast ways to implement this is to get common compilers for every language you support and just run them and check how many errors they produce.
Heuristics works up to a certain point and the more languages you will support the less help you would get from them. But for first few versions it's a good start, mostly because it's fast to implement and works good enough in most cases. You could check for specific keywords, function/class names in API that is used often, some language constructions etc. Best way is to check how many of these specific stuff a file have for each possible language, this will help with some syntax errors, user defined functions with names like this() in languages that doesn't have such keywords, stuff written in comments and string literals.
Anyhow you most likely would fail sometimes so some mechanism for user to override language choice is still necessary.
I think you never should rely on one single feature, since the absence in a fragment (e.g. somebody systematically using WHILE instead of for) might confuse you.
Also try to stay away from global identifiers like "IMPORT" or "MODULE" or "UNIT" or INITIALIZATION/FINALIZATION, since they might not always exist, be optional in complete sources, and totally absent in fragments.
Dialects and similar languages (e.g. Modula2 and Pascal) are dangerous too.
I would create simple lexers for a bunch of languages that keep track of key tokens, and then simply calculate a key tokens to "other" identifiers ratio. Give each token a weight, since some might be a key indicator to disambiguate between dialects or versions.
Note that this is also a convenient way to allow users to plugin "known" keywords to increase the detection ratio, by e.g. providing identifiers of runtime library routines or types.
Very interesting question, I don't know if it is possible to be able to distinguish languages by code snippets, but here are some ideas:
One simple way is to watch out for single-quotes: In some languages, it is used as character wrapper, whereas in the others it can contain a whole string
A unary asterisk or a unary ampersand operator is a certain indication that it's either of C/C++/C#.
Pascal is the only language (of the ones given) to use two characters for assignments :=. Pascal has many unique keywords, too (begin, sub, end, ...)
The class initialization with a function could be a nice hint for Java.
Functions that do not belong to a class eliminates java (there is no max(), for example)
Naming of basic types (bool vs boolean)
Which reminds me: C++ can look very differently across projects (#define boolean int) So you can never guarantee, that you found the correct language.
If you run the source code through a hashing algorithm and it looks the same, you're most likely analyzing Perl
Indentation is a good hint for Python
You could use functions provided by the languages themselves - like token_get_all() for PHP - or third-party tools - like pychecker for python - to check the syntax
Summing it up: This project would make an interesting research paper (IMHO) and if you want it to work well, be prepared to put a lot of effort into it.
There is no way of making this foolproof, but I would personally start with operators, since they are in most cases "set in stone" (I can't say this holds true to every language since I know only a limited set). This would narrow it down quite considerably, but not nearly enough. For instance "->" is used in many languages (at least C, C++ and Perl).
I would go for something like this:
Create a list of features for each language, these could be operators, commenting style (since most use some sort of easily detectable character or character combination).
For instance:
Some languages have lines that start with the character "#", these include C, C++ and Perl. Do others than the first two use #include and #define in their vocabulary? If you detect this character at the beginning of line, the language is probably one of those. If the character is in the middle of the line, the language is most likely Perl.
Also, if you find the pattern := this would narrow it down to some likely languages.
Etc.
I would have a two-dimensional table with languages and patterns found and after analysis I would simply count which language had most "hits". If I wanted it to be really clever I would give each feature a weight which would signify how likely or unlikely it is that this feature is included in a snippet of this language. For instance if you can find a snippet that starts with /* and ends with */ it is more than likely that this is either C or C++.
The problem with keywords is someone might use it as a normal variable or even inside comments. They can be used as a decider (e.g. the word "class" is much more likely in C++ than C if everything else is equal), but you can't rely on them.
After the analysis I would offer the most likely language as the choice for the user with the rest ordered which would also be selectable. So the user would accept your guess by simply clicking a button, or he can switch it easily.
In answer to 2: if there's a "#!" and the name of an interpreter at the very beginning, then you definitely know which language it is. (Can't believe this wasn't mentioned by anyone else.)