I would recommend against Ruby and Javascript (R I don't know enough about) for a first attempt.
I would recommend against Ruby and Javascript (R I don't know enough about) for a first attempt. I'm working on a Ruby compiler ( http://hokstad.com/compiler ). An interpreter is far easier, but still a huge amount of work. I'm sure it'd be fun, but I'd suggest trying a smaller/simpler project first and then revisit Ruby or JS. Ruby is an absolute nightmare to parse. Both Ruby and Javascript have complex execution models that seem deceptively simple at first glance. They're quagmire's. If you do want to do something Ruby-like, define a cut-down version. E.g. write down a grammar that covers the most important subset of Ruby that you use, and similarly define a small set of the core functionality. Parsing 80% of Ruby is easy. Chances are you've never used or seen most of the remaining 20% outside of rants about the complexity of the Ruby grammar. E.g. the plethora of ridiculous supported mechanisms for quoting text that allows you to do criminally unreadable stuff like "% x " (which, excluding the double-quotes parses as the string "x", as "%" introduces a quoted sequence started and terminated by the character after "%", except if the character is one of a set of exceptions of various kinds; this of course only when it occurs in a context when it can't be parsed as the infix modulo operator....) You can write a full compiler for a simpler language in the space it takes to just parse Ruby. You could probably define a suitably small cut-down version of Ruby that'd still be fun/usable relatively easily, especially if you're not concerned about actually being compatible.
Posted by vidarh on Jul 17, 2015, 9:36 AM
Tags
Related issues
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.5,500 issues0 comments
reliability (EdTech)
I frankly find the situation around UB puzzling.
I think it depends a little on how and where you work.
Self modifying has some sneaky failure modes with modern CPUs.
> Ban phones from class.
Coolify v5.x
Are you talking about a technical problem, or a conceptual problem?
This is not uncommon in the more blue-collar businesses.
> I wonder though, do people not strace programs any more?
I would recommend against Ruby and Javascript (R I don't know enough about) for a first attempt.
I would recommend against Ruby and Javascript (R I don't know enough about) for a first attempt. I'm working on a Ruby compiler ( http://hokstad.com/compiler ). An interpreter is far easier, but still a huge amount of work. I'm sure it'd be fun, but I'd suggest trying a smaller/simpler project first and then revisit Ruby or JS. Ruby is an absolute nightmare to parse. Both Ruby and Javascript have complex execution models that seem deceptively simple at first glance. They're quagmire's. If you do want to do something Ruby-like, define a cut-down version. E.g. write down a grammar that covers the most important subset of Ruby that you use, and similarly define a small set of the core functionality. Parsing 80% of Ruby is easy. Chances are you've never used or seen most of the remaining 20% outside of rants about the complexity of the Ruby grammar. E.g. the plethora of ridiculous supported mechanisms for quoting text that allows you to do criminally unreadable stuff like "% x " (which, excluding the double-quotes parses as the string "x", as "%" introduces a quoted sequence started and terminated by the character after "%", except if the character is one of a set of exceptions of various kinds; this of course only when it occurs in a context when it can't be parsed as the infix modulo operator....) You can write a full compiler for a simpler language in the space it takes to just parse Ruby. You could probably define a suitably small cut-down version of Ruby that'd still be fun/usable relatively easily, especially if you're not concerned about actually being compatible.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.