@kragen@nerdculture.de Can you elaborate on how nanopass helps manage complexity? I've tried to read the papers, but I think I'm not yet enlightened.

@vertigo @haitch

@akkartik @kragen@nerdculture.de @haitch Think Unix pipelines.

Each pass is like a Unix filter -- it takes input, processes it in some *very* well defined way, and produces output. Each pass communicates with other passes via in-memory buffers, so no mass storage is required.

Regarding mass storage requirements, though, you can have nanopass compilers on a Commodore 64 if you wanted, by reducing the size of the compilation unit. BSPL works on individual colon definitions, for example, and uses mere KB.

@vertigo I see, yes I divide up work into functions that operate on the entire compilation unit.

Mu has 27 'transforms': akkartik.github.io/mu/html/012

SubX has 7 so far, but I added an additional notion of 'checks': akkartik.github.io/mu/html/sub

But the original nanopass paper describes designing a separate formally-defined language for each pass: cs.indiana.edu/~dyb/pubs/comme

(Unix pipelines also introduce concurrency and flow-control; I perhaps know too much for that analogy to be helpful.)

@kragen@nerdculture.de @haitch

@akkartik @kragen@nerdculture.de @haitch That's an implementation detail; MS-DOS also had pipelines as of DOS 2.0 and later, but it lacked concurrency and flow control. Behind the scenes, COMMAND.COM handled pipelines using backing temporary files.

· · Web · 0 · 1 · 0
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!