booze-tools VS AECforWebAssembly

Mmmm... Indirectly... Sophie uses my literate parsing system.

It's not my idea. It's present at least as far back as YACC, "Yet Another Compiler-Compiler", which inspired the name of BISON (another parser-generator named for ungulates). Here's mine, written in Python: https://github.com/kjosib/booze-tools It also has a few extra bits. Feel free to exploit its MIT license to the fullest. I should mention that the design of symbolic reduce-actions was intended to allow one to use the same grammar across multiple host languages. You could even write a driver that does simply build a parse-tree and then hand that off to a separate phase, but in my world I almost always want a bottom-up tree-transduction as first-pass de-sugaring.

Many CS schools have an undergrad class called "compilers" in which you'll implement (from the ground up) either a Scheme or a thing-that-is-like-Java called decaf, or possibly you'll implement Scheme and just call it decaf. If your school does not have such a course, you can get class notes from Texas A&M or Stanford or a variety of other places. (Here's a parser for it.)

Great! I have not yet made source maps for my programming language that compiles to WebAssembly, and I probably never will.

Up until today, my AEC-to-WebAssembly was, if somebody tried to use two structures of different types as the second and the third operand to the ?: (ternary conditional) operator, as in this example: ``` Structure First Consists Of Nothing; EndStructure

Well, I have written the first compiler for my programming language, targetting x86, in IE6-compatible JavaScript, and the second compiler, targetting WebAssembly, has been written in C++11. I think that, to choose a language to write a compiler in, you need to look at at least two things:

You can see the releases v2.5.3 and v2.5.2 of AECforWebAssembly on GitHub. They are produced with the same version of GCC, the only difference (as far as I know) is that v2.5.2 was produced directly on Debian, whereas v2.5.3 was cross-compiled from Windows to Linux using Docker.

That could be true. I host my AEC-to-WebAssembly compiler on GitHub, GitLab and SourceForge, and it's only on GitHub that it has 21 stars and 2 forks. On GitLab and SourceForge, it has zero of both.

Well, the main compiler for my programming language is targetting the JavaScript Virtual Machine by outputting WebAssembly. I think it's even better than targetting Java Virtual Machine, because, for one thing, your executables can run in any modern browser if you output WebAssembly. If you target Java Virtual Machine, the users need to actually download your app. Furthermore, there is an official assembler for WebAssembly called WebAssembly Binary Toolkit (WABT), so your compiler can output assembly and not have to deal with binary files. There is nothing equivalent to that for Java Virtual Machine.