LightFusion™

Heres an idea:
You know how in C++, you need a library included for stuff like making a windows applictation (window based).
Do it like PHP, and have everything you ever need allready shiped with it. (Of course still allow librarys still). (You guys are probably allready going to do that, but just wanted to get my thoughts in :p.)

There was someone else who created a RAD for C++ here at VBF, maybe you should go have a talk with him?

Also, I know this is going to sound stupid, but its a saying that my programming teacher told us and it just stuck with me ever since she told us it. KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. You should keep that in mind when your making the syntax for LightFusion.

Offtopic:
That saying allways repeats itself in my mind when I'm programming. If I start to do something complicated, then that saying hits me, I figure out a longer (yet easier) way to do what I was doing.

I hope you guys really take this off, I know Ill be one of the first people using it :).

My two cents.

Jake, so you don't know what native code is either? You just know its faster. Fair enough.

Great to have your support killdragon and thanks for your input.

Found something:

http://vb.mvps.org/hardcore/html/p-c...nativecode.htm
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...plications.asp

Looks good. But I still don't get what native code IS. I get what interpreted is because I get what ASM is. I just don't see how you can bypass assmebly... but it is obviously possible because how else would there be ASM compilers.

Sweet looking new logos. You like Jake?

pretty colors.....

Much better logo timeshifter. Thanks for shrinking it. :) Maybe I should make ours the same size so they can go in a row. :)

lol... I get to have one in my sig by default since I pretty much started the whole thing...

I would help a bit more, but i'm kinda caught up with MiniShop Pro...

Each ASM opcode (one line) assembles to at least one byte of machine code. As machine code is executed it goes into the CPU pipeline (exactly how depends on the CPU itself) and is executed depending on the byte values.

You don't "bypass" machine code. ASM and machine code are pretty much equivalent. Higher level languages compile to ASM and then assemble into machine code.

I like the idea of editing the ASM produced but I might point out the difference between interpreting and compiling. Compiling means making a native code EXE, or ASM listing, out of higher level source code. Interpreting means processing each higher level instruction as it is read while the program is running. That requires an interpreter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

Each ASM opcode (one line) assembles to at least one byte of machine code. As machine code is executed it goes into the CPU pipeline (exactly how depends on the CPU itself) and is executed depending on the byte values.

You don't "bypass" machine code. ASM and machine code are pretty much equivalent. Higher level languages compile to ASM and then assemble into machine code.

---

Ok, then what is the difference between interepreted code and native code?

Another comment, this time on Jake's ASM explanation. Very nice work :thumb: just the last line where you said:

Quote:

---

'And the function written in C++ automatically returns the value of eax.

---

Just to clarify, in most calling conventions the return value is passed in the eax register. So the VC++ compiler is not actually putting in a "return eax;" statement for you. That would be like

Code:

---

mov eax, eax

---

which is silly... :) Because we were using eax in that code, you are modifiying the return value as you go along, and then when the funciton returns the value in eax is read as the return value. In your VB translation that would mean, instead of an "eax" variable, you use "Exponent".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eyeRmonkey

Ok, then what is the difference between interepreted code and native code?

---

Interpreted means your higher level (HL) source is read as the program executes and the interpreter executes instructions based on the HL source. The native code is all in the interpreter and conditionally executed.

I could also mention .NET IL (Intermediate Language). .NET apps are compiled into IL and IL is not interpreted. It is compiled (and optimised to an extent) into machine code by the JIT (Just-In-Time) compiler when you run the program.

OOohh penagate. I'm impressed. Someone's quoting my "Programming in the .NET Environment" book very well :p

Well, not word for word, but still, good to know you understand it. Although, I did always assume IL was interpreted. My bad..

chem

I edited it, missed the word "compiler" after JIT. Maybe now it is word for word :)

(Seems like there were a lot of posts while I was asleep. I missed a few when I was replying before, so...)

P-Code is evil... I can't think of any situation where you'd want to use it. Besides, it is a Microsoft invention. It is not a standard.

About things like __asm{}. The double underscores indicate a compiler extension. It is not part of the language standard. If we want to make inline ASM part of the language standard then it should be asm{}. But then we remove platform independence by targetting the x86 platform.

Also, we need to draw up a definitive document detailing the language itself, before we start on things like the IDE, and logos, etc. I know you guys are eager to do that, but without a language to built the product on then we don't really have much. Once we've sorted the concepts, and then the finer details of the language, then concentrate on a compiler. Even if it is just a command line tool to start with.

Good thinking. I only suggested it because I'm not actually doing anything with the compiler.

The reason I suggested converting to MASM is because I've run a MASM compiled program on many a different PC, without fail. I mean, there could have been some underlying memory issues which have buggered the PC's now :p but other than that, they ran fine.

chem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

I edited it, missed the word "compiler" after JIT. Maybe now it is word for word :)

(Seems like there were a lot of posts while I was asleep. I missed a few when I was replying before, so...)

P-Code is evil... I can't think of any situation where you'd want to use it. Besides, it is a Microsoft invention. It is not a standard.

About things like __asm{}. The double underscores indicate a compiler extension. It is not part of the language standard. If we want to make inline ASM part of the language standard then it should be asm{}. But then we remove platform independence by targetting the x86 platform.

Also, we need to draw up a definitive document detailing the language itself, before we start on things like the IDE, and logos, etc. I know you guys are eager to do that, but without a language to built the product on then we don't really have much. Once we've sorted the concepts, and then the finer details of the language, then concentrate on a compiler. Even if it is just a command line tool to start with.

---

Leave the syntax writing to me. I'm working on the basic programming concepts now. ;)

Jacob:

How exactly do you plan on wrapping DirectX into the language? "Header" files with calls and stuff to the DX libs?

chem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob Roman

Leave the syntax writing to me. I'm working on the basic programming concepts now. ;)

---

When can we view this document with the concepts? I'm dieing to see how you guys are going about this :D

I might get my mum to pick up a Compiler Construction book from her University for free :eek:

chem

DirectX will come later. Let's focus on one thing at a time here ;)

I need some ideas for a Not operator that is not ! or <>. A minimum of one character is ideal. Anyone up for ideas.

Also I'm using ? as the Or operator cause it makes sense once you think about it.

What's wrong with ! ?

Do you just want it different from C? :D

Personally I see nothing wrong with and, or, not etc.

Well if it's gonna be a different language, might as well make a few changes right? I may stick with ! but I prefer some ideas for something different. Who knows, we might run into the perfect operator.

OK, let's forget all other languages exist and start from scratch.

What would be most logical?

And .... well, &.
Equals .... =
Assignment .... -> or <-
Or .... /
Not .... equals with a slash through it, but that's a bit hard to type :D

But, / is used for division, so that rules that out. So Or will have to be something else.

Quote:

---

Well if it's gonna be a different language, might as well make a few changes right?

---

Wrong. This unnecessarily makes learning the language harder, thus making adaption worse. The closer you get to an existing language, the better. Doing that will also show you if you're merely reinventing a language or actually doing something innovative.

Here's what I got so far:

Code:

---


=        equals                c = a
+        add                c = a + b        c += a
-        subtract      c = a - b        c -=  a
*        multiply        c = a * b        c *= a
/        divide                c = a / b        c /= a
%        remainder    c = a % b          c %= a
&        and                c = a & b        c &= a
?        or                c = a ? b        c ?= a    (Makes sense to use ? as or)
!        not                c = ! a
        xor

---

I'm thinking the backslash can be the Not operator instead. But it's just an idea.

And Cornbee, it always takes time for someone to learn a new language. Only this language we are creating will make it easy for someone to learn, not just make C++ gurus easy to switch over, but everybody. It's not gonna look completely like C++.

No separate assignment/equality operators?

Well I was thinking of using the same operators to do Bitwise comparisons as well as logical operators. Kinda like how VB had it to make it easier to use.

Yeah, then you relinquish control over what is going on to the compiler. In other words, you can't control whether it is an And or a compare.

I know....

Code:

---

& ....... Bitwise AND
&& ...... Logical AND
and ..... Compiler decides

---

?

Should the Bitshifting operators be the same as C++? Or should we use functions?

The compiler will know when we program it to tell the difference.

<< or shl; >> or shr. Functions go in the library, operators in the core syntax. I think bitshifting deserves an operator.

The general operands universally make sense... that's why they're similar in almost all languages. It'd probably be a serious turn-off if you removed them and replaced them by strange symbols...


Just my two cents, though.

I know it will know, but you don't have control over it. Sometimes in VB you want to do a combine bitwise and logical AND's and you can't.

Yeah why not. I think it deserves an operator as well.

Does everyone agree that Or should be the ? operator? It makes sense once you think about it.

C# operators.

There's a few more to deal with yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob Roman

Does everyone agree that Or should be the ? operator? It makes sense once you think about it.

---

I just don't think that the ? symbol has anything to do with combination. It should be some sort of conditional operator.

Cause you are use to it as being a C operator. Well in my opinion, looking at the symbol makes me think "Is this true Or is this true?" I mean we can't have all the C operators the same as LightFusion can we?