Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

List of Compilers/Langs without C dependency

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-07 10:34

FreePascal - Not even libC dependent
FASM - macro-assembler
Forth - various Forths written in assembler

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-07 10:41

Anything that provides binary distribution and can compile itself. Given the compiler is written in the language it compiles code in.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-07 13:17

**** COMMODORE 64 BASIC V2 ****

64K RAM SYSTEM 38911 BASIC BYTES FREE

READY.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-08 11:53

>>3
Damn, that's a nostalgiabomb.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-08 13:26

Oberon.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-08 13:46

node.js

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-08 14:00

>>2
So, Rust?

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-09 22:29

>>7
Probably, never used it. Also, Go.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-09 22:33

>>8
Is experience of use a prerequisite for knowledge of the language of implementation? Or was that just your way of saying, "I answer rhetorical questions"?
Rust, by the way, was implemented in OCaml before being able to bootstrap.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-09 22:38

>>9
But it's self-hosting now.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-09 22:42

>>10
That's what I meant by bootstrap, yes. Technically I was probably incorrect as it may have been semi-feature-complete when reimplemented in itself, so bootstrapping may not have been necessary.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-09 22:51

>>9
It means I never cared about Rust, what it was implemented in nor if it was able to bootstrap. Originally when writing >>2 I had Go in mind.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-10 10:41

>>12
Who cares if you care? This thread is about facts.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-11 12:15

Rust is not dependent on C:
Rust 93.9%
C 1.8% https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/search?l=c
Shell 1.2%
Makefile 1.1%
Python 0.9% https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/search?l=python
Yacc 0.4%
Other 0.7%

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-11 12:17

Node.js is not C dependent
JavaScript 57.7%
C++ 21.6% https://github.com/nodejs/node/search?l=cpp
C 7.6% https://github.com/nodejs/node/search?l=c
PHP 6.7%
HTML 3.5%
Python 0.9% https://github.com/nodejs/node/search?l=python
Other 2.0%

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-11 12:21

Rust lib.c is neat btw:

#define S(T) ((((T)-1)<0) ? 'i' : 'u')
#define B(T) (((int)sizeof(T)) * CHAR_BIT)
#define put_type(N,T) \
printf(" type %s = %c%d;\n", N, S(T), B(T))

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-11 13:08

Genera
Mezzano
SICL
Movitz

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-11 13:20

>>17
Mezzano
Requires SBCL which is 5.9% C
https://github.com/froggey/Mezzano/blob/master/compiler/builtins/memory.lisp
https://github.com/froggey/Mezzano/blob/master/BUILD
https://github.com/sbcl/sbcl/search?l=c

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-11 13:26

>>17
Movitz
https://github.com/dym/movitz/tree/master/grub-bootloader
Uses a binary image of Grub which is:
C 91.0%
Assembly 4.4%
C++ 2.2%
Objective-C 1.7%
Python 0.6%
Shell 0.1%

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-11 13:27

>>17
SICL
has C files in codebase
https://github.com/robert-strandh/SICL/search?l=c

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-11 13:32

>>17
Genera
Genera as in Lisp Machine software is obsolete
as Lisp Machine are.
OpenGenera is a commercial product which
written in C/asm and emulates Genera
http://pt.withy.org/publications/VLM.html

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-11 13:33

I just want to say something about SICL

it looks good

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-11 13:39

"Able to compile itself" is not a
measure of independence.
no dependencies on C means that if C
compilers stopped existing your software
would not be affected in the least.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-11 16:01

>>23
If your language could compile itself, and there is a binary of it out there, and C compilers stopped existing, then it wouldn't be affected in the least. That's pretty much what "able to compile itself" implies.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-11 17:28

>>24
You have Genera binaries, independent of C.
Unfortunately they don't run on your architecture.
To compile it on another architecture
(and for use of new hardware features on
existing architecture) you
will need something...that would produce new binaries.
C compiler stopped existing. What do you do now?

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-11 18:13

>>25
This is retarded. What's next, are you going to blame C compiler for not compiling on hypothetical platforms that have only Pascal compilers?

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-11 18:42

>>26
If there was a C depends in source Pascal compilers
won't help. you have:
1.C source code
2.A binary for another architecture
3.No C compilers

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-11 18:48

If you're left without any running system anywhere, you can always write a slow bootstrapping interpreter for whatever you want in whatever language you want to re-bootstrap your compilers.

But that's a stupid hypothetical that proves nothing. Many parts of computing are effectively living in a post-C world, and the growing pains of being 100% separated from C wouldn't be half as bad as they would have been 15 years ago.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-11 21:19

>>28
The problem is not bootstrapping: the problem is
the binary holds black-box source.
The source with which the binary was compiled are
effectively requiring themselves to function.
The language implementation with self-hosting is
creating a source loop which becomes a circular
dependency on the compiler(and in lisp Genera case
non-portable compiler).

see
https://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p761-thompson.pdf
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/01/countering_trus.html
for the same problem in C source loop.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-12 0:32

>>29
Re-read >>28. It's not a problem.

Trust is a different matter, and you're now just throwing shit against the wall.

Take your spherical computer of uniform density somewhere else.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-12 8:19

>>30
Re-read >>29 you create a source loop:
SourceA in LanguageA creates
CompilerB that compiles SourceB
Used to create CompilerC which
compiles SourceB to CompilerC
You then remove LanguageA dependencies: SourceA(dependency on LanguageA) and CompilerB(dependency on LanguageA).
What is left is SourceB which
requires CompilerC, however
it depends on itself as a closed loop of SourceB->CompilerC->SourceB.
Now if CompilerC doesn't work on your plarform(its binary), contatin trojans or is too compromised to used, what happens to sourceB?

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-12 8:21

>>30
Re-read >>29 you create a source loop:
Source A in Language A creates
Compiler B that compiles Source B
Used to create Compiler C which
compiles Source B to Compiler
You then remove Language A dependencies:
Source A(dependency on Language A) and
Compiler B(dependency on Language A).
What is left is Source B which
requires Compiler C, however
it depends on itself as a closed loop of
Source B->Compiler C->Source B.
Now if Compiler C doesn't work on your
platform(its binary), contains trojans
or is too compromised to use, what
happens to source B?

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-12 8:22

>>32
Check 'em

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-12 16:02

>>31-32
Nobody said anything about losing the source code.

- You have the source code to the FooLang environment, written in FooLang.
- You wrote a simple FooLang bootstrap environment in C, but no longer need it as long as you have a running FooLang binary.
- C falls off the face of the planet.
- NO PROBLEM.

Then you pile on other stupid situations like a dumbfuck:

- You can no longer run the FooLang binary.
- So use AnotherLang to interpret the old binary, or interpret the source code, making a new FooLang binary for the new system.

The situations you're parroting like an idiot are about trust and security, not about the basic ability to run things if their bootstrap dependencies are lost.

Name: Anonymous 2016-06-14 0:14

Is there a language that's like C, but good?

Name: Anonymous 2016-06-14 0:21

>>35
No

Name: Anonymous 2016-06-14 1:09

>>7
The Cuck language uses LLVM, which is written in C++.

Name: Anonymous 2016-06-14 1:20

And that's why those hipsters are retarded.
They claim C is unsafe and their new shiny language is perfect. But guess what? Their inefficient toy language, down the rabbit hole, depends on C!

C is unsafe if you're a bad programmer. If you actually give a damn about what you're doing, you can prevent bugs.

Name: Anonymous 2016-06-14 1:49

Actually, it makes sense to write your program in pure x86 assembly, because almost every platform has recompiler for x86 code, so your x86 is guaranteed to be faster than Java. Than again, you can write JavaScript instead.

Name: Anonymous 2016-06-14 2:20

Who in their right mind would willingly write C code? As in a boss is not over your shoulder telling you that you need to use it--you're on your free time with a personal project and you choose C of all fucking things. WHY. Do you enjoy segfaults? inb4 "I don't get segfaults because I'm 31337" Do you enjoy only having m4/grep as your most advanced abstraction mechanisms? inb4 "I'm so 31337 I don't need anything more than function pointers"
Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode + RSS -