Re: [dev] New Suckless computer language?

From: Daniel V <daniel.viksporre_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 05:17:26 +0200

Ok!

The latest compiler written in C, and outputs byte code that can run in the VM.

Before I let it out there, I have a few things I would like to fix
first, like output of x86 binaries. And I like to split the project to
several projects, so the language, the compiler, and the VM has
separate names, so it's easier to document and talk about.

Do any one know of a C compiler that can out output snippets of
machine code, for a wide range of CPU:s ? I'm primarily thinking of
x86, x64, ARM, ARM-thumb.

The thing that is stopping me to make machine code output, is that I
have been to lazy to make the effort, to write a ELF head generator
for the binaries.

The language is a system language. And It's made to make kernel calls directly.

And it compiles fast. It takes somewhere between 10 to 30 instructions
to compile each token, plus the time to read in the text and tokenize
it.

The syntax is inspired by C, but it's much clearer what type of
machine code it will generate.

The benefit is probably that is It's super small codebase (in about
300-500 lines of code for a basic compiler functionality), no extra
library dependencies, easy to understand, easy to extend and compiles
super fast, and easy to combine with whatever you want. It was
originally made as a generic language to change the compiler fast, to
match different instruction set, that you want to use. So it was made
to be a language, that could be changed on the fly when you make new
instructions to a VM or a Soft Core for an FPGA.

So it's made to save time in development, and give a higher
understanding on what exactly is done. Giving more brain power left,
to solve actual problems.

SCC looks interesting thou.

// Daniel V.



2016-07-23 1:15 GMT+02:00, Quentin Carbonneaux <quentin_AT_c9x.me>:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:37:54PM +0200, Daniel V wrote:
>> It's not C. It's a new language. The benefit is that you can get a
>> basic understanding of what the compiler does fast. It's next to
>> impossible to hide how it compiles and what type of code it generates.
>> So it could be used for security reasons, with less need for security
>> auditing.
>
> So, a better compiler. As I said, hold on, we're working on it and
> made good progress already. SCC's code is really nice and readable.
> Another good thing about SCC is that the source is public.
>
>> And it generates fast code without optimizing. And it compiles
>> extremely fast. And you can easily change it to fit an other
>> instruction set, CPU or VM.
>
> How fast? Do you have benchmarks of any kind? Also, if you want to
> sell a language to suckless, you better make sure that you can call
> Xlib, and also a good bit of POSIX, is that the case?
>
>> And the language syntax is readable. It's not a esoteric language.
>
> Not esoteric, as in, like C?
>
> Also, why haven't we seen any code yet? Are you trolling the list?
>
> --
> Quentin
>
>
Received on Sat Jul 23 2016 - 05:17:26 CEST