←back to thread

Compilers: Incrementally and Extensibly (2024)

(okmij.org)
143 points todsacerdoti | 2 comments | 05 Apr 25 12:55 UTC | HN request time: 0.417s | source
Show context
nate_martin ◴[05 Apr 25 16:05 UTC] No.43594464[source]▶
>The compiler itself is to be developed in OCaml.

These seems like a misstep that I've seen in a few other compiler implementation courses. For some reason these programming language professors always insist on completing the project in their personal favorite language (Haskell, OCaml, Standard ML, etc).

As a student this makes the project significantly more difficult. Instead of just learning how to implement a complier, you're also learning a new (and likely difficult) programming language.

replies(6): >>43594528 #>>43594754 #>>43594821 #>>43595250 #>>43597712 #>>43602140 #
1. Jtsummers ◴[05 Apr 25 16:14 UTC] No.43594528[source]▶
Learning a new programming language isn't that hard of a task, every decent programmer will learn a dozen or maybe even dozens over their career.

Also, neither OCaml nor SML are hard to learn. Haskell is more challenging, but that's because it's become, in a sense, multiple languages. The core of Haskell is no harder than OCaml or SML to learn, except for reasoning about lazy evaluation and some of its consequences. All the things people use on top of Haskell, though, does make it more to learn but what you'd need to reach equivalent utility as SML or OCaml for a compilers course is not that hard to learn.

replies(1): >>43594587 #
2. remexre ◴[05 Apr 25 16:23 UTC] No.43594587[source]▶
Many universities that use OCaml in upper-division courses also use it in lower-division; my university requires all CS majors to take a course that is taught in OCaml, and covers higher-order programming, "advanced" (Hindley-Milner) type systems, equational reasoning, etc., typically in their sophomore year.

The compilers class can then be taught in it without worrying about that problem much.