[HN Gopher] The C Interpreter: A Tutorial for Cin (1988)
___________________________________________________________________
The C Interpreter: A Tutorial for Cin (1988)
Author : mananaysiempre
Score : 14 points
Date : 2023-05-28 18:06 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tuhs.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tuhs.org)
| jmclnx wrote:
| c interpreter, I remember trying to get a good one of those was
| the holy grail back in the 80s. Then (IIRC), PERL came out and
| the interpreter talk disappeared.
| zabzonk wrote:
| i used c, and latterly c++, throught the 1980s - i don't
| remember any particular interest in interpreters for either.
| qsort wrote:
| There's some interest in interpreted C++ in the scientific
| community (e.g. ROOT), but C and C++ are just about the worst
| possible languages to run interpreted. Ugly as it may be, the
| "interpreted shell, compiled core" approach is the winning one.
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| C and C++ are about the worst possible languages to _use for
| scripting_ --let alone interactive interfaces, which even the
| current crop of conventionally "scripting" languages is kind
| of bad at[1].
|
| Having an interpreter to poke at in-development code, though,
| would IMO still be useful. (I wouldn't use Haskell or
| SML/OCaml for scripting either, and yet I swear by their
| interpreters.) Even GDB has something like one--the
| expression fragment the "print" command understands includes
| _casts_ , which means it can parse type names, and for
| unoptimized C that's honestly half the battle.
|
| Or take it from (younger) Russ Cox[2]:
|
| > All current C environments suffer from a much larger
| problem, namely a lack of interactivity. You can't sit at a
| prompt, enter C fragments, and see what happens.
|
| [1] http://yosefk.com/blog/i-cant-believe-im-praising-
| tcl.html
|
| [2] https://swtch.com/~rsc/systems-2002.pdf
| saboot wrote:
| Depends on the workflow, "C++ for scripting" helped to
| discover the higgs boson
| Mikhail_Edoshin wrote:
| Python has an excellent interactive shell but I'm not sure
| this is such a blessing. It seems that nearly every package
| out there required you to use that shell to understand
| something mundane, like the type of a function result or
| properties of some object. I'd rather have good
| documentation instead.
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| Other C interpreter threads here[1,2] refer to a number of
| historical implementations (which you can often find on
| abandonware sites if that's your thing), but this particular
| one from 10th Edition Unix seems to mostly go unmentioned on
| the 'net (this roff source for the paper and a spartan man
| page[3] are all I could find).
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11748147
|
| [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20950865
|
| [3] https://man.cat-v.org/unix_10th/1/cin
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-28 23:01 UTC)