Re: Universal Compiler

Am Sat, 08 Feb 2025 19:55:14 +0000 schrieb Mr Flibble:

On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 18:07:38 -0000 (UTC), joes <noreply@example.org>
wrote:

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?

Which 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.

What is the folding process? What are the challenges?

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.

It is open source.

Where is it?

--
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.