Walter wrote:
> "Daniel Yokomiso" <daniel_yokomiso@yahoo.com.br> wrote in message
> news:b0btch$1ev5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>    AFAIK it's not necessary but Lisp people like having the compiler
>>available at runtime. I would like that too ;-)
> 
> I've been thinking of making DMDScript available at runtime for D programs.

I'm working on a D compiler in D right now; the backend is cruddy (same thing as DLI, but it creates very slightly better code) but one could wield it for an interactive mode.  It'll be faster than any interpreted language, at least.

Its state is that integer and floating-point arithmetic are done, some control structures are in, and functions and classes are fairly well done.  What's missing are the majority of types, various expressions, some control structures (switch, goto, break, continue), interfaces, exceptions, templates, operator overloading, array operations, Phobos, and saving/loading object files.  It's ABI-compatible with DMD.

Walter wrote:
> Lots of apps need a built in language, so why not provide one? (For example,
> the lithp interpreter found in EMACS text editors.)

Yes. This is absolutely brilliant. This feature alone with make D very interesting to application developers.

> The factors driving DMDScript as the scripting language to use in
> conjunction with D would be:
> 1) ECMAscript is popular and well known
> 2) I know ECMAscript
> 3) ECMAscript syntax is derived from C, so is not hopelessly dissimilar to D
> syntax
> 4) I have a fully implemented and debugged implementation of ECMAScript

Going with DMDScript is excellent. It gets the functionality now in a way that is affordable and low risk. And it provides a model for doing other things in the future.

What's your view on the impedance match between DMDScript and D? How do the language features and object models compare?

>>It's a big feature, though, which will cost a good chunk of time.
>
> Not that much. It's mostly translating the code.

If it doesn't cost too much to get the feature into the codebase, great.

What do think the impact will be on testing (not just the parts individually, but in combination with each other) and documentation?

All in all, I think going forward with D&DScript would be awesome. Hmmm. Not to be confused with D&D Script.

--ms

"Michael Slater" <mail@effectivity.com> wrote in message news:b2s7jk$26kv$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> What's your view on the impedance match between DMDScript and D? How do the language features and object models compare?

The syntax is superficially the same, but the huge difference is that DMDScript is typeless. Everything is a variant. Typeless languages are ideal for scripting.

> What do think the impact will be on testing (not just the parts individually, but in combination with each other) and documentation?

Testing is always a problem.

Burton Radons <loth@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in news:b2s328$234s$1@digitaldaemon.com:

> I'm working on a D compiler in D right now; the backend is cruddy (same thing as DLI, but it creates very slightly better code) but one could wield it for an interactive mode.  It'll be faster than any interpreted language, at least.


I don't understood:

You will need a D compiler to compile your D compiler ? What is the advantage ?

He inteded it as a "proof of concept". He said that before.
A language which cannot compile a compiler of itself is merely a toy. This would also automatically ensure some grade of compatibility between different compilers.

BTW, it would be safe to write a D->C compiler (DFront) completely in D, bacause as soon as it's bootsrapped with some existing D compiler, it can be compiled on all targeted systems.

Juarez Rudsatz wrote:
> I don't understood: 
> 
> You will need a D compiler to compile your D compiler ?
> What is the advantage ?

Walter wrote:

> 
> The syntax is superficially the same, but the huge difference is that DMDScript is typeless. Everything is a variant. Typeless languages are ideal for scripting.
> 

Ever considered a kind of type inference for D?

"Garen" <garen_nospam_@wsu.edu> wrote in message news:b33nfp$374$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter wrote:
> > The syntax is superficially the same, but the huge difference is that DMDScript is typeless. Everything is a variant. Typeless languages are
ideal
> > for scripting.
> Ever considered a kind of type inference for D?

Yes, and I think that strong typing is the way to go for large programs.

Walter wrote:


> Yes, and I think that strong typing is the way to go for large programs.
> 

Yeah, you can have type inference with strong typing though, but its some work to do.  Not that I know how to do it with D, but I always liked it when using ML-like langs.

Ilya Minkov <midiclub@8ung.at> wrote in news:b2uaa2$10l3$1 @digitaldaemon.com:

> BTW, it would be safe to write a D->C compiler (DFront) completely in D, bacause as soon as it's bootsrapped with some existing D compiler, it can be compiled on all targeted systems.

And maybe tools like:

o    	syntax style formater?
o    	source code documentation tools?