DOCSLIB.ORG

Programming Paradigms Compilation Or Interpretation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Programming Paradigms Compilation Or Interpretation Programming Computer programming is the iterative process of writing or editing source code. Editing source code involves testing, analyzing, and refining, and sometimes coordinating with other programmers on a jointly developed program. A person who practices this skill is referred to as a computer programmer, software developer or coder. The sometimes lengthy process of computer programming is usually referred to as software development. The term software engineering is becoming popular as the process is seen as an engineering discipline. Paradigms Computer programs can be categorized by the programming language paradigm used to produce them. Two of the main paradigms are imperative and declarative. Programs written using an imperative language specify an algorithm using declarations, expressions, and statements. A declaration couples a variable name to a datatype. For example: var x: integer; . An expression yields a value. For example: 2 + 2 yields 4. Finally, a statement might assign an expression to a variable or use the value of a variable to alter the program's control flow. For example: x := 2 + 2; if x = 4 then do_something(); One criticism of imperative languages is the side effect of an assignment statement on a class of variables called non-local variables. Programs written using a declarative language specify the properties that have to be met by the output. They do not specify details expressed in terms of the control flow of the executing machine but of the mathematical relations between the declared objects and their properties. Two broad categories of declarative languages are functional languages and logical languages. The principle behind functional languages (like Haskell) is to not allow side effects, which makes it easier to reason about programs like mathematical functions. The principle behind logical languages (like Prolog) is to define the problem to be solved ² the goal ² and leave the detailed solution to the Prolog system itself. The goal is defined by providing a list of subgoals. Then each subgoal is defined by further providing a list of its subgoals, etc. If a path of subgoals fails to find a solution, then that subgoal is backtracked and another path is systematically attempted. The form in which a program is created may be textual or visual. In a visual language program, elements are graphically manipulated rather than textually specified. Compilation or interpretation A computer program in the form of a human-readable, computer programming language is called source code. Source code may be converted into an executable image by a compiler or executed immediately with the aid of an interpreter. Either compiled or interpreted programs might be executed in a batch process without human interaction, but interpreted programs allow a user to type commands in an interactive session. In this case the programs are the separate commands, whose execution is chained together. When a language is used to give commands to a software application (such as a shell) it is called a scripting language. Compiled computer programs are commonly referred to as executables, binary images, or simply as binaries ² a reference to the binary file format used to store the executable code. Compilers are used to translate source code from a programming language into either object code or machine code. Object code needs further processing to become machine code, and machine code is the Central Processing Unit's native code, ready for execution. Interpreted computer programs -in a batch or interactive session- are either decoded and then immediately executed or are decoded into some efficient intermediate representation for future execution. BASIC, Perl, and Python are examples of immediately executed computer programs. Alternatively, Java computer programs are compiled ahead of time and stored as a machine independent code called bytecode. Bytecode is then executed upon request by an interpreter called a virtual machine. The main disadvantage of interpreters is computer programs run slower than if compiled. Interpreting code is slower than running the compiled version because the interpreter must decode each statement each time it is loaded and then perform the desired action. On the other hand, software development may be quicker using an interpreter because testing is immediate when the compilation step is omitted. Another disadvantage of interpreters is the interpreter must be present on the computer at the time the computer program is executed. By contrast, compiled computer programs need not have the compiler present at the time of execution. No properties of a programming language require it to be exclusively compiled or exclusively interpreted. The categorization usually reflects the most popular method of language execution. For example, BASIC is thought of as an interpreted language and C a compiled language, despite the existence of BASIC compilers and C interpreters. Some systems use Just-in-time compilation (JIT) whereby sections of the source are compiled 'on the fly' and stored for subsequent executions. Self-modifying programs A computer program in execution is normally treated as being different from the data the program operates on. However, in some cases this distinction is blurred when a computer program modifies itself. The modified computer program is subsequently executed as part of the same program. Self-modifying code is possible for programs written in Machine code, assembly language, Lisp, C, COBOL, PL/1, Prolog and javascript (the eval feature) among others. Computer software Computer software, or just software, is the collection of computer programs and related data that provide the instructions telling a computer what to do. The term was coined to contrast to the old term hardware (meaning physical devices). In contrast to hardware, software is intangible, meaning it "cannot be touched". Software is also sometimes used in a more narrow sense, meaning application software only. Sometimes the term includes data that has not traditionally been associated with computers, such as film, tapes and records. Examples of computer software include: y Application software includes end-user applications of computers such as word processors or Video games, and ERP software for groups of users. y Middleware controls and co-ordinates distributed systems. y Programming languages define the syntax and sematics of computer programs. For example, many mature banking applications were written in the COBOL language, originally invented in 1959. Newer applications are often written in more modern programming languages. y System software includes operating systems, which govern computing resources. Today large applications running on remote machines such as Websites are considered to be system software, because the end-user interface is generally through a Graphical user interface (GUI), such as a web browser. y Testware is software for testing hardware or a software package. y Firmware is low-level software often stored on electrically programmable memory devices. Firmware is given its name because it is treated like hardware and run ("executed") by other software programs. y Shrinkware is the older name given to consumer bought software, because it was often sold in reatail stores in a shrinkwrapped box. y Device drivers control parts of computers such as disk drives, printers, CD drives, or computer monitors. y Programming tools help conduct computing tasks in any category listed above. For programmers, these could be tools for debugging, or reverse engineering older legacy systems in order to check source code compatibility. History The first theory about software was proposed by Alan Turing in his 1935 essay Computable numbers with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem (Decision problem). Paul Niquette claims to have coined the term "software" in this sense in 1953, and first used in print by John W. Tukey in 1958. The academic fields studying software are computer science and software engineering. The history of computer software is most often traced back to the first software bug in 1946. As more and more programs enter the realm of firmware, and the hardware itself becomes smaller, cheaper and faster due to Moore's law, elements of computing first considered to be software, join the ranks of hardware. Most hardware companies today have more software programmers on the payroll than hardware designers, since software tools have automated many tasks of Printed circuit board engineers. Just like the Auto industry, the Software industry has grown from a few visionaries operating out of their garage with prototypes. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were the Henry Ford and Louis Chevrolet of their times, who capitalized on ideas already commonly known before they started in the business. In the case of Software development, this moment is generally agreed to be the publication in the 1980s of the specifications for the IBM Personal Computer published by IBM employee Philip Don Estridge. Today his move would be seen as a type of crowd-sourcing. Until that time, software was bundled with the hardware by Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) such as Data General, Digital Equipment and IBM. When a customer bought a minicomputer, at that time the smallest computer on the market, the computer did not come with Pre-installed software, but needed to be installed by engineers employed by the OEM. Computer hardware companies not only bundled their software, they also placed demands on the location of the hardware in a
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Compile-Time Safety and Runtime Performance in Programming Frameworks for Distributed Systems
    Compile-time Safety and Runtime Performance in Programming Frameworks for Distributed Systems lars kroll Doctoral Thesis in Information and Communication Technology School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science KTH Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm, Sweden 2020 School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science KTH Royal Institute of Technology TRITA-EECS-AVL-2020:13 SE-164 40 Kista ISBN: 978-91-7873-445-0 SWEDEN Akademisk avhandling som med tillstånd av Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan fram- lägges till offentlig granskning för avläggande av teknologie doktorsexamen i informations- och kommunikationsteknik på fredagen den 6 mars 2020 kl. 13:00 i Sal C, Electrum, Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan, Kistagången 16, Kista. © Lars Kroll, February 2020 Printed by Universitetsservice US-AB IV Abstract Distributed Systems, that is systems that must tolerate partial failures while exploiting parallelism, are a fundamental part of the software landscape today. Yet, their development and design still pose many challenges to developers when it comes to reliability and performance, and these challenges often have a negative impact on developer productivity. Distributed programming frameworks and languages attempt to provide solutions to common challenges, so that application developers can focus on business logic. However, the choice of programming model as provided by a such a framework or language will have significant impact both on the runtime performance of applications, as well as their reliability. In this thesis, we argue for programming models that are statically typed, both for reliability and performance reasons, and that provide powerful abstractions, giving developers the tools to implement fast algorithms without being constrained by the choice of the programming model.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Studies of Programming Languages; Course Lecture Notes
    Comparative Studies of Programming Languages, COMP6411 Lecture Notes, Revision 1.9 Joey Paquet Serguei A. Mokhov (Eds.) August 5, 2010 arXiv:1007.2123v6 [cs.PL] 4 Aug 2010 2 Preface Lecture notes for the Comparative Studies of Programming Languages course, COMP6411, taught at the Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada. These notes include a compiled book of primarily related articles from the Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia [24], as well as Comparative Programming Languages book [7] and other resources, including our own. The original notes were compiled by Dr. Paquet [14] 3 4 Contents 1 Brief History and Genealogy of Programming Languages 7 1.1 Introduction . 7 1.1.1 Subreferences . 7 1.2 History . 7 1.2.1 Pre-computer era . 7 1.2.2 Subreferences . 8 1.2.3 Early computer era . 8 1.2.4 Subreferences . 8 1.2.5 Modern/Structured programming languages . 9 1.3 References . 19 2 Programming Paradigms 21 2.1 Introduction . 21 2.2 History . 21 2.2.1 Low-level: binary, assembly . 21 2.2.2 Procedural programming . 22 2.2.3 Object-oriented programming . 23 2.2.4 Declarative programming . 27 3 Program Evaluation 33 3.1 Program analysis and translation phases . 33 3.1.1 Front end . 33 3.1.2 Back end . 34 3.2 Compilation vs. interpretation . 34 3.2.1 Compilation . 34 3.2.2 Interpretation . 36 3.2.3 Subreferences . 37 3.3 Type System . 38 3.3.1 Type checking . 38 3.4 Memory management .
    [Show full text]
  • Rexx Interview Questions That Can Help You Ace Your Rexx Interview
    By OnlineInterviewQuestions.com Rexx is the acronym for Restructured Extended Executor. It is a high-level programming language developed by Mike Cowlishaw to make learning and reading easier. There are multiple applications of Rexx. It is used as scripting and for processing data. It is also as an internal macro language in some software like THE and ZOC. Rexx is a versatile programming language and can be mixed with various commands to different host environments. It is a very useful language for beginners and the demand for experienced computer professionals is growing exponentially. This blog covers important Rexx interview questions that can help you ace your Rexx interview. If you wish to stand out from the crowd, these interview questions are your best friend. Q1. What is Uni-REXX? Uni-REXX is a UNIX implementation of Rexx programming language which offers rich sets of functions that are particularly designed for UNIX environment. Uni-REXX is now available on SUN’s Solaris 7/8/9, H/P’s HP/UX 10/11, IBM’s AIX 4/5, SGI’s IRIX 5/6, NCR UNIX, Linux Intel and S/390. It is used for several purposes such as automating system administration tasks. It also helps in development for end-user applications and rapid-prototyping of complied-language applications. Q2. Enlist the features of Rexx as a programming language. Following are the few features of Rexx- Rexx language has a very simple syntax format. Rexx can support multiple functions, procedures and route commands to several environments. It comes with very few artificial limitations and provides crash protection.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineering Definitional Interpreters
    Reprinted from the 15th International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming (PPDP 2013) Engineering Definitional Interpreters Jan Midtgaard Norman Ramsey Bradford Larsen Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science Veracode Aarhus University Tufts University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract In detail, we make the following contributions: A definitional interpreter should be clear and easy to write, but it • We investigate three styles of semantics, each of which leads to may run 4–10 times slower than a well-crafted bytecode interpreter. a family of definitional interpreters. A “family” is characterized In a case study focused on implementation choices, we explore by its representation of control contexts. Our best-performing ways of making definitional interpreters faster without expending interpreter, which arises from a natural semantics, represents much programming effort. We implement, in OCaml, interpreters control contexts using control contexts of the metalanguage. based on three semantics for a simple subset of Lua. We com- • We evaluate other implementation choices: how names are rep- pile the OCaml to 86 native code, and we systematically inves- x resented, how environments are represented, whether the inter- tigate hundreds of combinations of algorithms and data structures. preter has a separate “compilation” step, where intermediate re- In this experimental context, our fastest interpreters are based on sults are stored, and how loops are implemented. natural semantics; good algorithms and data structures make them 2–3 times faster than na¨ıve interpreters. Our best interpreter, cre- • We identify combinations of implementation choices that work ated using only modest effort, runs only 1.5 times slower than a well together.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Programming Language Interpreters
    Open Programming Language Interpreters Walter Cazzolaa and Albert Shaqiria a Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy Abstract Context: This paper presents the concept of open programming language interpreters, a model to support them and a prototype implementation in the Neverlang framework for modular development of programming languages. Inquiry: We address the problem of dynamic interpreter adaptation to tailor the interpreter’s behaviour on the task to be solved and to introduce new features to fulfil unforeseen requirements. Many languages provide a meta-object protocol (MOP) that to some degree supports reflection. However, MOPs are typically language-specific, their reflective functionality is often restricted, and the adaptation and application logic are often mixed which hardens the understanding and maintenance of the source code. Our system overcomes these limitations. Approach: We designed a model and implemented a prototype system to support open programming language interpreters. The implementation is integrated in the Neverlang framework which now exposes the structure, behaviour and the runtime state of any Neverlang-based interpreter with the ability to modify it. Knowledge: Our system provides a complete control over interpreter’s structure, behaviour and its runtime state. The approach is applicable to every Neverlang-based interpreter. Adaptation code can potentially be reused across different language implementations. Grounding: Having a prototype implementation we focused on feasibility evaluation. The paper shows that our approach well addresses problems commonly found in the research literature. We have a demon- strative video and examples that illustrate our approach on dynamic software adaptation, aspect-oriented programming, debugging and context-aware interpreters. Importance: Our paper presents the first reflective approach targeting a general framework for language development.
    [Show full text]
  • A Hybrid Approach of Compiler and Interpreter Achal Aggarwal, Dr
    International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 6, June-2014 1022 ISSN 2229-5518 A Hybrid Approach of Compiler and Interpreter Achal Aggarwal, Dr. Sunil K. Singh, Shubham Jain Abstract— This paper essays the basic understanding of compiler and interpreter and identifies the need of compiler for interpreted languages. It also examines some of the recent developments in the proposed research. Almost all practical programs today are written in higher-level languages or assembly language, and translated to executable machine code by a compiler and/or assembler and linker. Most of the interpreted languages are in demand due to their simplicity but due to lack of optimization, they require comparatively large amount of time and space for execution. Also there is no method for code minimization; the code size is larger than what actually is needed due to redundancy in code especially in the name of identifiers. Index Terms— compiler, interpreter, optimization, hybrid, bandwidth-utilization, low source-code size. —————————— —————————— 1 INTRODUCTION order to reduce the complexity of designing and building • Compared to machine language, the notation used by Icomputers, nearly all of these are made to execute relatively programming languages closer to the way humans simple commands (but do so very quickly). A program for a think about problems. computer must be built by combining some very simple com- • The compiler can spot some obvious programming mands into a program in what is called machine language. mistakes. Since this is a tedious and error prone process most program- • Programs written in a high-level language tend to be ming is, instead, done using a high-level programming lan- shorter than equivalent programs written in machine guage.
    [Show full text]
  • Metaprogramming: Interpretaaon Interpreters
    How to implement a programming language Metaprogramming InterpretaAon An interpreter wriDen in the implementaAon language reads a program wriDen in the source language and evaluates it. These slides borrow heavily from Ben Wood’s Fall ‘15 slides. TranslaAon (a.k.a. compilaAon) An translator (a.k.a. compiler) wriDen in the implementaAon language reads a program wriDen in the source language and CS251 Programming Languages translates it to an equivalent program in the target language. Spring 2018, Lyn Turbak But now we need implementaAons of: Department of Computer Science Wellesley College implementaAon language target language Metaprogramming 2 Metaprogramming: InterpretaAon Interpreters Source Program Interpreter = Program in Interpreter Machine M virtual machine language L for language L Output on machine M Data Metaprogramming 3 Metaprogramming 4 Metaprogramming: TranslaAon Compiler C Source x86 Target Program C Compiler Program if (x == 0) { cmp (1000), $0 Program in Program in x = x + 1; bne L language A } add (1000), $1 A to B translator language B ... L: ... x86 Target Program x86 computer Output Interpreter Machine M Thanks to Ben Wood for these for language B Data and following pictures on machine M Metaprogramming 5 Metaprogramming 6 Interpreters vs Compilers Java Compiler Interpreters No work ahead of Lme Source Target Incremental Program Java Compiler Program maybe inefficient if (x == 0) { load 0 Compilers x = x + 1; ifne L } load 0 All work ahead of Lme ... inc See whole program (or more of program) store 0 Time and resources for analysis and opLmizaLon L: ... (compare compiled C to compiled Java) Metaprogramming 7 Metaprogramming 8 Compilers... whose output is interpreted Interpreters..
    [Show full text]
  • Specialising Dynamic Techniques for Implementing the Ruby Programming Language
    SPECIALISING DYNAMIC TECHNIQUES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE RUBY PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences 2015 By Chris Seaton School of Computer Science This published copy of the thesis contains a couple of minor typographical corrections from the version deposited in the University of Manchester Library. [email protected] chrisseaton.com/phd 2 Contents List of Listings7 List of Tables9 List of Figures 11 Abstract 15 Declaration 17 Copyright 19 Acknowledgements 21 1 Introduction 23 1.1 Dynamic Programming Languages.................. 23 1.2 Idiomatic Ruby............................ 25 1.3 Research Questions.......................... 27 1.4 Implementation Work......................... 27 1.5 Contributions............................. 28 1.6 Publications.............................. 29 1.7 Thesis Structure............................ 31 2 Characteristics of Dynamic Languages 35 2.1 Ruby.................................. 35 2.2 Ruby on Rails............................. 36 2.3 Case Study: Idiomatic Ruby..................... 37 2.4 Summary............................... 49 3 3 Implementation of Dynamic Languages 51 3.1 Foundational Techniques....................... 51 3.2 Applied Techniques.......................... 59 3.3 Implementations of Ruby....................... 65 3.4 Parallelism and Concurrency..................... 72 3.5 Summary............................... 73 4 Evaluation Methodology 75 4.1 Evaluation Philosophy
    [Show full text]
  • CS 6311 – Programming Languages I – Fall 2006 Assignment #1 (100 Pts) Due: 7:00Pm, Monday 9/25/6
    Most of the solutions are from Edwin Rudolph (who did an outstanding job on the assignment) with a few modifications. CS 6311 – Programming Languages I – Fall 2006 Assignment #1 (100 pts) Due: 7:00pm, Monday 9/25/6 Directions: The answers to the following questions must be typed in Microsoft Word and submitted as a Word document by the due date. There are a total of 40 questions. 1. A system of instructions and data directly understandable by a computer’s central processing unit is known as what? (1 pt) Machine language. 2. What is the name of the category of programming languages whose structure is dictated by the von Neumann computer architecture? (1 pt) Imperative. 3. Although PL/I and Ada were designed to be multi-purpose languages, in fact PL/I was considered to be the “language to end all languages”, why is there such difficulty in creating a general purpose programming language applicable to a wide range of areas? (3 pts) The difficulty in creating an all purpose language lies in the fact that the variety of problems that we ask computers to solve do not all lend themselves to being easily or conveniently expressed in the same way. Numerical processing involves different types of tasks than string processing; a program which computes trajectories of a spacecraft probably does not require extensive string processing facilities, just as a program to search for patterns in news feeds does not require extensive mathematical facilities. Attempting to create languages which provide facilities for solving all types of problems is that the language suffers from a feature bloat, not only making it difficult for programmers to effectively use it, but also making it more difficult to implement compilers and/or translators for.
    [Show full text]
  • Characteristics of Java (Optional)
    Characteristics of Java (Optional) Y. Daniel Liang Supplement for Introduction to Java Programming Java has become enormously popular. Java’s rapid rise and wide acceptance can be traced to its design and programming features, particularly its promise that you can write a program once and run it anywhere. As stated in the Java language white paper by Sun, Java is simple, object- oriented, distributed, interpreted, robust, secure, architecture-neutral, portable, high-performance, multithreaded, and dynamic. Let’s analyze these often-used buzzwords. 1 Java Is Simple No language is simple, but Java is a bit easier than the popular object-oriented programming language C++, which was the dominant software-development language before Java. Java is partially modeled on C++, but greatly simplified and improved. For instance, pointers and multiple inheritance often make programming complicated. Java replaces the multiple inheritance in C++ with a simple language construct called an interface, and eliminates pointers. Java uses automatic memory allocation and garbage collection, whereas C++ requires the programmer to allocate memory and collect garbage. Also, the number of language constructs is small for such a powerful language. The clean syntax makes Java programs easy to write and read. Some people refer to Java as "C++--" because it is like C++ but with more functionality and fewer negative aspects. 2 Java Is Object-Oriented Java is inherently object-oriented. Although many object- oriented languages began strictly as procedural languages, Java was designed from the start to be object-oriented. Object-oriented programming (OOP) is a popular programming approach that is replacing traditional procedural programming techniques.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioinformatics: a Practical Guide to the Analysis of Genes and Proteins, Second Edition Andreas D
    BIOINFORMATICS A Practical Guide to the Analysis of Genes and Proteins SECOND EDITION Andreas D. Baxevanis Genome Technology Branch National Human Genome Research Institute National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland USA B. F. Francis Ouellette Centre for Molecular Medicine and Therapeutics Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia Canada A JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., PUBLICATION New York • Chichester • Weinheim • Brisbane • Singapore • Toronto BIOINFORMATICS SECOND EDITION METHODS OF BIOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS Volume 43 BIOINFORMATICS A Practical Guide to the Analysis of Genes and Proteins SECOND EDITION Andreas D. Baxevanis Genome Technology Branch National Human Genome Research Institute National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland USA B. F. Francis Ouellette Centre for Molecular Medicine and Therapeutics Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia Canada A JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., PUBLICATION New York • Chichester • Weinheim • Brisbane • Singapore • Toronto Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. In all instances where John Wiley & Sons, Inc., is aware of a claim, the product names appear in initial capital or ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Readers, however, should contact the appropriate companies for more complete information regarding trademarks and registration. Copyright ᭧ 2001 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including uploading, downloading, printing, decompiling, recording or otherwise, except as permitted under Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the Publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • From Interpreter to Compiler and Virtual Machine: a Functional Derivation Basic Research in Computer Science
    BRICS Basic Research in Computer Science BRICS RS-03-14 Ager et al.: From Interpreter to Compiler and Virtual Machine: A Functional Derivation From Interpreter to Compiler and Virtual Machine: A Functional Derivation Mads Sig Ager Dariusz Biernacki Olivier Danvy Jan Midtgaard BRICS Report Series RS-03-14 ISSN 0909-0878 March 2003 Copyright c 2003, Mads Sig Ager & Dariusz Biernacki & Olivier Danvy & Jan Midtgaard. BRICS, Department of Computer Science University of Aarhus. All rights reserved. Reproduction of all or part of this work is permitted for educational or research use on condition that this copyright notice is included in any copy. See back inner page for a list of recent BRICS Report Series publications. Copies may be obtained by contacting: BRICS Department of Computer Science University of Aarhus Ny Munkegade, building 540 DK–8000 Aarhus C Denmark Telephone: +45 8942 3360 Telefax: +45 8942 3255 Internet: [email protected] BRICS publications are in general accessible through the World Wide Web and anonymous FTP through these URLs: http://www.brics.dk ftp://ftp.brics.dk This document in subdirectory RS/03/14/ From Interpreter to Compiler and Virtual Machine: a Functional Derivation Mads Sig Ager, Dariusz Biernacki, Olivier Danvy, and Jan Midtgaard BRICS∗ Department of Computer Science University of Aarhusy March 2003 Abstract We show how to derive a compiler and a virtual machine from a com- positional interpreter. We first illustrate the derivation with two eval- uation functions and two normalization functions. We obtain Krivine's machine, Felleisen et al.'s CEK machine, and a generalization of these machines performing strong normalization, which is new.
    [Show full text]