Re: Writing a Compiler: Lisp or Scheme or Haskell?
- From: Jon Harrop <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 21:29:20 +0100
iwritecode2@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Neither the source nor target language is a very low level language
( such as assembler or machine code ) The target language is a not-so-
low-level language such as SQL or even C.
How do Lisp and Scheme stack up against Haskell for this sort of
thing?
Badly. Metaprogramming benefits enormously from pattern matching. Lisp
offers nothing in that regard (and the Greenspun alternatives to modern
function language implementations suck in comparison, e.g. fare-match).
Scheme has something but nothing like as much as Haskell or ML.
You might also consider tools like Camlp4, ocamllex, ocamlyacc, menhir,
dpygen etc. for OCaml.
Lisp and Scheme do offer first-class symbols and EVAL but both are of little
practical value. Symbols are trivial to implement in Haskell or ML. EVAL
was long since made obsolete by VMs.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?u
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Writing a Compiler: Lisp or Scheme or Haskell?
- From: Kaz Kylheku
- Re: Writing a Compiler: Lisp or Scheme or Haskell?
- From: Raffael Cavallaro
- Re: Writing a Compiler: Lisp or Scheme or Haskell?
- References:
- Writing a Compiler: Lisp or Scheme or Haskell?
- From: iwritecode2
- Writing a Compiler: Lisp or Scheme or Haskell?
- Prev by Date: Re: Where to begin?
- Next by Date: Re: Java versus Lisp. Comparison needed.
- Previous by thread: Re: Writing a Compiler: Lisp or Scheme or Haskell?
- Next by thread: Re: Writing a Compiler: Lisp or Scheme or Haskell?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading