Language Design

Billy Mays <81282ed9a88799d21e77957df2d84bd6514d9af6@myhashismyemail.com>
Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:16:10 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Language Design 81282ed9a88799d21e77957df2d84bd6514d9af6@myhashism (Billy Mays) (2011-07-18)
Re: Language Design usenet@rwaltman.com (Roberto Waltman) (2011-07-18)
Re: Language Design sinu.nayak2001@gmail.com (Srinivas Nayak) (2011-07-18)
Re: Language Design anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2011-07-19)
Re: Language Design zwinkau@kit.edu (Andreas Zwinkau) (2011-07-20)
Re: Language Design acolvin@efunct.com (mac) (2011-07-23)
Re: Language Design christophe.de.dinechin@gmail.com (Christophe de Dinechin) (2011-07-23)
[8 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Billy Mays <81282ed9a88799d21e77957df2d84bd6514d9af6@myhashismyemail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:16:10 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Keywords: design, question, comment
Posted-Date: 18 Jul 2011 17:11:51 EDT

I am trying to design a programming language for a simple processor
(16 bit, ~10 instructions, 16 registers). I am not sure what a
language actually needs in order to be more useful than pure assembly,
but is also reasonable to implement.


I had originally tried to make a RPN style language where the language
is purely stack based, but I realized it wouldn't be Turing complete.
I'd rather not just re implement C or other commonly used languages,
but I'm having a hard time coming up with something I'd actually want
to use.


Any advice for a newbie?


--
Bill
[Rather than trying to invent yet another language, I'd retarget some existing 16 bit
C compiler. -John]

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.