BCD XML 2 D (Hi Gregor)

[BLS]

Hi Remy,
you wrote :
> It would be wise to merge our efforts toward common goals, but we still
should
> have choice in the tool we use
A bit OFF TOPIC but this is one of the reasons why I am working on a
Client/Server IDE which should enable us to work together in real time....

the language machine (simpler ?)
Maybe because of the several available examples and documents  ANTLR.
respectivre Terrence offers it  is (at least for me) easier to handle ANTLR
than the Language Machine.  So I will give it a try.. let us
see..................

Many Thanks for your comments, Remy.
Bjoern.






"Rémy Mouëza" <Rémy_member at pathlink.com> schreef in bericht
news:e5q0tj$1p21$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> >BLS wrote:
> >> Hi ,
> >> A few month ago I am playing with the idea to create an Java2XML Tool
in
> >> order to use XML as intermediate language to translate Java into D. I
found
> >> an allready existing tool, but it only supports Java 1.3 and the
generated
> >> XML was not well formed. Anyway, Using ANTLR and the existing Java 1.5
> >> Grammar I should be able to create a full working Java 1.5Parser . This
> >> Parser will further enable me to create adequate XML
representations....
> >> XML to D ! At this point I am a little bit helpless and unexperienced,
so I
> >> would like to ask you, or somebody else of course , for advice,
hints,links,
> >> in other words help.
> >>
> >> Bjoern
> >>
> >>
>
> Last year, I have made a tool similar to Gregor's bcd. It was using GCCXML
and
> Python. I even ported part of the FLTK 1.5 library. I wasn't really
satisfied
> and was planning to make my own C++ header parser to do it again (some
day),
> using D this time but Gregor has been faster.
> Last november, I also used Peri Hankey's Language machine
> (http://languagemachine.sf.net) to make a kind of C++ to D translator. I
used
> Peri D to D translator ( a proof of concept ) based on the same following
idea:
>
> >Most features of Java are supported by D in a somewhat direct fashion,
> >so I suspect that many parts of the XML->D translation will be somewhat
> >trivial.  Just write parser functions for each type of XML node that
> >outputs the appropriate D code, and since the structure is fairly
> >similar, much of it will probably work.
>
> I mean, lots of C++ features are supported by D in a simpler and cleaner
> fashion. Others are more difficult to translate. I just made some
modifications
> througout Peri's original translator front end to fool the back end.
> The parser could translate trivial code quite correctly but was making
more
> errors with longer code. It was convenient for speeding the rewrite of
some C++
> code into D.
> Yet, I have some trouble with the language machine: I'm so used to think
> grammars as trees that I can't manage to start a binder from scratch using
it.
>
> Gregor said:
> >But like I said, our projects, while they seem similar, are actually
> >fundamentally different (porting vs binding), so I'm not sure how much
> >help I can be.
> >
> >  - Gregor Richards
>
> From what I've experienced, I'd say :
> - binding is relatively simpler than porting: there is less code to
analyse but
> this prevent to use some features or make these features difficult to use
(
> templates, cross-language porlymorphism, how to use D mixins in C++ ?
...).
> - porting, if successfully achieved, don't limit the D programmer: all D
> features can be used with the ported code, but there is more analysis
involved,
> some features have no direct equivalent in the target language ( Java
> decorators, although we can do it using templates ) and there is no direct
match
> with the language library.
>
> I was disappointed with my C++ to D translator because although it
produced
> syntactically correct code, the semantic was not translated at all. There
had to
> be a hand rewrite to make it work correctly. I didn't get any further.
>
> Peri Hankeys made a Java to D translator, modifying his D to D front end
to make
> it handle Java syntax. The main point now is to manage to match Java's
library
> with phobos or any runtime library.
> If your mind is not tied to grammar trees as mine, you may wish to join
Peri's
> project since the translation step is already done. Some Java expertise I
don't
> have is needed. The language machine is simpler to use than ANTLR, smaller
( but
> you may not bother ), and is implemented in D ( actually gdc but dmd ports
have
> been reported ).
>
> Gregor advice is fine too.
> >PS: Best advice: Just dive in and do it ^^
>
> It would be wise to merge our efforts toward common goals, but we still
should
> have choice in the tool we use. Moreover, A Java to XML tool could be used
by
> people outside the D community.
>
>
>