jeffhykin

😂

"Yeah we could make single defacto config, one that requires no additional dependencies, and one that entirely skips the mess of cli-args-via-env-vars ... OR 😏 We could make users pick one of several competing options, all of which do effectively the same thing but are mostly incompatible with each other and allow for a new tabs-vs-spaces-kind-of debate while also not letting you understand other peoples code bases unless you learn all of them. And, not only does it require everyone to install a separate binary, but also they need to somewhat coordinate on which version--versions that are independent from the gcc version but must be kinda-sorta-coordinated with the gcc version."

Sorry, I'm not convinced

The best part of this is the subtle implication that you can tell a million completely different stories with the same data.

I expected this comment section to be a mess, but actually it's really good:

• "why not what"
• "as self-documenting as possible"

If you want an example, look at the Atom codebase. It is incredibly well done.

also if you're interested in languages join c/programming_languages!

LLVM is the engine everything compiles to. The problem is there's no car, it's just the engine lol.

And other than Rust (which uses LLVM) the existing cars are not very configurab--well I mean they're configurable but not at the extreme level of configuration you're talking about.

Wow I knew some about LLVM IR but I had no idea it had high level options like garbage collection.

IMO a config.yaml or toml would simplify things

does this compiler exist

TLDR; 65% of what you want exists as the Rust compiler, which is probably as close as you're going to get at the moment (edit: I was wrong see the comment about racket for a less practical but more flexible system). Take a look at macros like view! on this page. Rust doesnt support html-like syntax, but it does within that view! because someone made a macro that supports it. Rustc doesn't directly have a config file AFAIK but it also doesn't need any build tools (no make, cmake, autoconf, etc) because everything can be done with rust itself (because it's macro system is Turing complete with full file access).

Full Response:

I agree with the general idea, but I think there are lots of misconceptions. Gcc does allow doing things before the preprocess step, after the preprocess step, before the linking step, etc. It's possible, but not easy, to run your own programs inbetween those kinds of steps. As for why there's no config file, it's probably cause gcc is really old, but I'll have to let someone else comment on that.

However, syntax support is effectively a completely different feature request. For example the "adding brackets to indentation" couldn't really/correctly come before the preprocessing step. I mean a really hacky solution like my indent experiment from a long time ago can, but it will never be even slightly reliable because of the preprocessor, multi-line strings, comments and other edgecases. Let me explain.

• The syntax cannot be parsed without running the preprocessor. Things like un-matched brackets are completely allowed before the preprocessing step. It would be literally impossible for the parser to run before preprocessing.
• So let's talk preprocessing. The preprocessor is so stupid it won't even notice the difference between C, Haskell, or Ada. It's just looking for strings, comments, ints, and preprocessor directives. That's it. It has no idea about scopes or brackets or anything like that.
• So for the "adding brackets to indentation" to work, it would need to run its own preprocessor step, then do some parsing of its own, and then run the indent-to-bracket conversion.

But note, preprocessor strings just coincidentally parse the same as C strings. There's already a limitation of the preprocessor failing on, lets say, python where python has triple-quote strings.

That said, preprocessing is actually highly unusual in the sense that it can be done as a separate step. Usually parsing needs to be done as a unified operation. Not to say it can't be modular, but rather the module must be given to a central controller that knows about everything rather than just having a code-transformaiton step.

With those misconceptions out of the way, now I want to talk about the parts I agree with.

IMO the perfect language is the one that has an "engine" that is completely separate from the syntax. And then the language/compiler should allow for different syntax. LLVM IR could be argued as being "an engine", but man is it a messy edgecase-y engine with no unified front-end.

The closest current thing to what you're talking about is almost certainly Rust macros. Unlike the preprocessor, Rust macros fully understand rust and are a part of the parsing process. They are decently close to what you're saying, instead of compiler flags it's just imports within Rust. You can write HMTL, SQL, and other code just right in the middle of a rust program (and it's not a string either, it's actual syntax support). Not only is it possible, but I have been eagerly awaiting for someone to create a garbage-collected syntax within a Rust macro. People have already created garbage collectors, it's just a matter of making a nice wrapper and inter-op.

That said, and even though Rust macros are head-and-sholders above basically every other language, I personally still think rust macros don't go far enough. Indent-based code isn't really possible within rust macros, rust macros can't have imbalanced braces, and there can be escaping issues that prevent things like YAML syntax from ever being possible. They also can't allow for extensions like units, e.g. 10gallons without wrapping it with some kind of delimiter (which defeats the point)

AFAIK currently there is no compiler that supports a composable syntax like that. I've worked on designing such a system, and while I don't think it's impossible, it is extremely hard. There's a lot of complications, like parsing precedence, lookaheads, operator precedence. Two syntax modules that don't know about each other can easily break each other. Like I said, I don't think it's impossible, but it is difficult.

My favorite was this project because it really shouldn't be possible, it requires some unusual problem solving (kinda like code golf), but the best part is seeing people's horrified expression when they realize

1. The monstrosity works
2. There's no real alternative

(I'm working on a video that explains it, but until then the readme and stack overflow post will have to do.)

That's insane. You're basically talking about a custom implementation of pytorch autograd right? How long did it take?

Yeah, and maybe that means I should try making such an instance. I don't have the funds for something like lemmy.world, but I've got the technical background. So maybe that'll turn into my winter break project