bluebird VS xvm

0 upto n and 0 thru n. I think I saw it in Bluebird first and really liked it.

Instead of the classic visitor pattern, I found it easier to create a class that basically wraps a big switch statement that switches on an enum representing the kind of expression. You pass it an expression, and based on the enum returned by its kind() function you downcast the expression into the subclass you need. The code is here for reference. My AST code is here.

I am working some again on my Ada-like language bluebird. I am making another attempt to use MLIR as an intermediate IR between the AST and LLVM IR (I made a brief attempt a few months ago just to look into it).

I fworked some more towards adding pointers on my Ada-like programming language bluebird. I've finished adding pointer types and variables (as well as the operators for dereferencing/getting the address of objects), but I still need to add the ability to dereference and assign.

I started to experiment with using MLIR to write a high-level IR for my language bluebird, which will hopefully reduce the work of implementing features I want to add such as generics and ranges, as well as allowing me to eventually write some optimizations. I am also considering rewriting my AST as an MLIR dialect, since MLIR provides a bunch of type-checking/error printing/support infrastructure.

I continued implementing support for references (a restricted form of pointers) in my Ada-like language bluebird. I also am working on adding a cleanup pass between my parser/typechecker to handle stuff like type resolution of literals and constant folding.

I didn’t add too many new features to my Ada-like language bluebird this month because of lots of projects/school stuff.

Here is a link to my optimizer pass setup for reference. This is just a simple optimization pipeline (I think clang has a setup where optimization stages are re-run multiple times to take advantage of inlining making more optimizations possible).

I made some more progress on bluebird, my Ada-like language.

I continued to make progress on the compiler for my Ada-inspired language bluebird. I will have less time to spend on it as classes began earlier last month, but I still hope to continue working on it. Things are getting to the point where adding a new feature isn’t as difficult as it was when doing so often meant writing the supporting code from nothing.

Have a look at the ecstasy library for the language definitions of these types.

2) Funky interfaces: This is an Ecstasy interface that declares abstract static members (e.g. functions), which can then be implemented on any class and overridden on any sub-class, such that they can be invoked by type (instead of this), and virtually resolved (late bound at runtime) based on the type known at compile time. The best known example, of course, is Hashable, because it has to guarantee that a type implements both equals() and hashCode() on the same class, and the implementation is tied to the type, and not to the this. (C# added a similar feature last year in version 11.)

I'm just going to warn you in advance that invocation is one of the hardest things in the compiler to make easy. In other words, the nicer your language's "developer experience" is around invocation, the more hell you're going to have to go through to get there. The AST nodes for Name( (NameExpression) and Invoke( (InvocationExpression) alone are 7kloc in the Ecstasy implementation, for example -- but the result is well worth it.

Ecstasy uses message passing automatically behind the scenes for asynchronous calls, but the message passing isn't visible at the language level (i.e. there is no "message object" or something like that visible). Basically, all Ecstasy code is executing on a fiber inside a service, and services are all running concurrently, so from any service realm to any service realm, the communication is by message.

Regarding Ecstasy, we did not set out to build a new language; we actually set out to solve a real world problem. Specifically, we wanted to be able to dramatically improve the density of workloads in data centers, by at least two orders of magnitude in the case of lightly used applications. Our initial goal was to create a runtime design that would support 10,000 stateful application instances on a single server. Let's call it the "a10k" problem 🤣 ... a tribute to the c10k problem from 1999. We refer to our goal as "zero carbon compute", i.e. we want to push the power and hardware cost for an application to as close to zero as possible; you can't reach zero, but you can get close. If we succeed, we will help reduce the electricity used in data centers over the next few decades by a significant percentage.

Generally, left to right, one character at a time. If you’re looking for example code, here’s a simple hand-built lexer.

Parts of Ecstasy are now implemented in Ecstasy. Here's the Lexer, for example.

Ecstasy

Ecstasy and the xvm were designed assuming an adaptive runtime compiler (similar in concept to the Hotspot compiler for Java), but not necessarily using a JIT.

A Future reference has the various capabilities that you'd imagine, taking lambdas for thenDo(), whenComplete(), etc. The reference, in the above example, is a local variable, so you just obtain it using the C-style & operator: