Re: neos Universal Compiler

On 18/03/2025 14:30, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 14:20:04 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
 

On 18/03/2025 14:08, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 15:59:45 +0200, Mikko wrote:
>

On 2025-03-17 16:53:01 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:21:05 +0200, Mikko wrote:
>

On 2025-03-16 18:40:42 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>

On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 12:28:24 +0200, Mikko wrote:
>

On 2025-03-15 15:08:47 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>

On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 11:55:52 +0200, Mikko wrote:
>

On 2025-03-15 04:00:52 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>

Hi!
>
neos universal compiler (that can compile any programming
language)
is successfully running the tokenization stage tokenizing a
program written in the neos reference language. #cpp #coding
#compiler #compsci #gamedev
>
/Flibble

>
Can it tokenize FORTRAN 60 or FORTRAN IV ?

>
ANY programming language.
>
/Flibble

>
How is neos configured to tokenize FORTRAN 60 ?

>
The same way you would configure it for any other programming
language.

>
If it is configured the same for each programming language then how
does it know how to tokenize?

>
You configure it by providing a language specific neosBNF schema
(grammar)
file (an input to the compilalation process).

>
Is there a neosBNF schema that describes the tokens of FORtRAN 66 or
Algol 60?

>
Not yet.

>
We deduce, then, that neos universal compiler (that can compile any
programming language) cannot compile FORTRAN 66 or ALGOL 60.
>
We can further deduce that you do not consider FORTRAN 66 and ALGOL 60
to be programming languages.

 Your deduction is wrong, my universal compiler has the CAPABILITY to
compile any programming language and to add support for a particular
language a schema file has to be provided.

So what you seem to be saying is that your universal compiler lacks the CAPABILITY to compile any programming language until that capability is added. So my first deduction was correct.

Your "further deduction" predicated on your first deduction is thus also
wrong.

I don't see why.
Your original claim (which is what I was addressing) was that it CAN (note: present tense) compile any programming language. Since by your own admission it can't (yet) currently compile either FORTRAN 66 or ALGOL 60 until such time as schema files are devised for those languages, either your original claim was mistaken or you do not consider FORTRAN 66 and ALGOL 60 to be programming languages. Since we now learn (by your rejection of the latter half) that you presumably /do/ consider FORTRAN 66 and ALGOL 60 to be programming languages, we are forced to conclude that your original claim was in error.
We now have three examples of languages it can't compile: FORTRAN 66, ALGOL 60, and Piet. You seem to be of the opinion that potential is achievement. It isn't.
Were you to claim that your "universal" compiler has the POTENTIAL to compile any programming language, but to add support for a particular language a schema file has to be provided, that seems to me to be a much more defensible claim.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within