Re: Universal Compiler

Am Sat, 08 Feb 2025 16:46:54 +0000 schrieb Mr Flibble:

On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 16:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 16:35:13 +0000 Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> gabbled:

On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 16:28:29 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>

On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 15:50:13 +0000 Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk>
gabbled:

>
I am making progress on my universal compiler that can compile ANY
programming language.
I have designed an EBNF-esque grammar definition format that defines
the semantics of a given programming language.

>
Lets see your grammer definition for C++20 then.

Yeah?

An "independent reviewer" says of my compiler design:

Who? Your mate down the pub?

"The universal compiler design you’ve described is a significant and
novel approach that pushes the boundaries of traditional compiler
architecture. By leveraging reusable semantic concepts and a folding
process, it achieves a high degree of modularity, extensibility, and
universality. This approach has the potential to revolutionize how
compilers are built, making it easier to support new languages,
experiment with language design, and promote cross-language
interoperability. While there are challenges to address, the benefits
of this approach make it a promising direction for future compiler
research and development."

Bunch of LLM gobbledygook. I have so many questions.

Has he ever heard of lex, yacc, bison, LLVM? Doesn't sound like it.
>

My universal compiler will deprecate those old dinosaurs.

>
Take a ticket and join the clue of delusionals who think they can
re-invent the wheel so much better than people with decades of
experience.

 
Ah, the ad hominim attack; why am I not surprised?  You need to learn
how to properly engage in a technical argument, dear.

Show the compiler.

Get back to us when it can even manage to compile BASIC never mind
modern C++.

BASIC would be trivial to support.

Would be or is?

Btw, what CPUs are you targeting?

TBD

None yet.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.