The following practical was to try and define AST datatypes for a Skel concrete syntax language and then compile small programs into JVM bytecode. The experience was incredibly beneficial and thoroughly enjoyable. To begin with, I wanted to push myself out of my comfort zone. Therefore, I decided to code the AST / compiler using Haskell. This was a huge risk, as I had never used Haskell or had I even studied compiler design before. Having said that, at the same time it gave me a new perspective to build upon and gave me greater insight into programming language design. The downside to this though, was that I did not know enough Haskell to take the compiler further and re-evaluate the initial Skel language design. Therefore, the aim was to accumulate and investigate as much as possible in the process.
Haskell provided an approach to programming AST’s which seemed more productive than any other language. Data sets can be assigned using generalised algebraic datatypes. For each element in the Skel language provided, the compiler looks like the following:
-- <struct> ::=
-- <exprs> (Expression)
-- | <structs> "•" <structs> (Composition)
-- | "iter" <int> <structs> (Iteration)
-- Struct type is defined = takes the following expressions "Exprs"
-- Alternative options are "StructComp" and "StructIt"
data Struct = StructExp Exprs
| StructComp Structs Structs
| StructIt Int Structs
deriving Show-- <expr> ["," <exprs>] (Expressions)
-- Exprs type is defined = takes the following expressions "Expr"
-- Alternative options are "ExprAlt"
data Exprs = Expression Expr
| ExprSeperator Expr Exprs
deriving Show-- <expr> ::=
-- <int> (integer value)
-- | <string> (String value)
-- | <bool> (Boolean value)
-- | <id> [ "=" <exprs> ] (Identifier / assignment)
-- | "raise" <id> "=" <exprs> (Raise exception)
-- | <exprs> "catch" <id> <id> ":" <exprs> (Catch exception)
-- | <exprs> <op> <exprs> (Binary operator)
-- | "(" <exprs> ")" (Grouping)
-- Expr type is Already defined = takes the following alternatives:
data Expr = ExprInt Int
| ExprString String
| ExprBool Bool
| ExprAssignment Id Exprs
| ExprRaise Id Exprs
| ExprCatch Exprs Id Id Exprs
| ExprOp Exprs Op Exprs
| ExprGroup Exprs
deriving ShowWithin the same compiler.hs document, there are a number of small abstract syntax expressions which use the generalised algerbriac datatypes to compose small programs:
printStringInts = Program "printStringInts" ( Par ( ParId "ExprSeperator" ( Struct ( StructExp ( ExprSeperator ( ( ExprString "Hello World!" ) ) ( Expression(ExprInt42)) ) ) )))
printStringBool = Program "printStringBool" ( Par ( ParId "ExprSeperator" ( Struct ( StructExp ( ExprSeperator ( ( ExprString "Hello World!" ) ) ( Expression(ExprBoolTrue)) ) ) )))The document is then compiled and depending on what program is selected the datatypes will link together and the./compiler command should return the chosen programs expression. Lastly, the next step is to convert the program expression into JVM bytecode. A lot of research was conducted for this as it seems converting Haskell to JVM is not as simple as first assumed. After some debating, my lack of Haskell knowledge did not allow me to undertake any substantial functional programming to convert the expressions into JVM. I was unable to link the chain together and therefore when using Jasmin (an assembler for the JVM) – it seemed as though manually creating the .j files for JVM conversion was the only route. As a result, a number of test programs were conducted. For example, the following returnBoolFalse program in JVM bytecode looks like the following:
.class public returnBoolFalse .super java/lang/Object
; standard initializer ; default constructor
.method public <init>()V
aload_0 ; push this
invokespecial java/lang/Object/<init>()V ; call super return
.end method
.method public static main([Ljava/lang/String;)V
; allocate stack big enough to hold 1 item .limit stack 2
.limit locals 1
; push java.lang.System.out (type PrintStream)
getstatic java/lang/System/out Ljava/io/PrintStream;
; push int to be printed
; 0 = false, 1 = true
ldc 0
; invoke println
invokevirtual java/io/PrintStream/println(Z)V ; bool print (Z) ; terminate main
return
.end methodWhich returns the following result to the console:
8afbe368:compiler homefolder$ java returnBoolFalse
falseThe following program returnBoolTrue when converted to JVM bytecode returns the expression Boolean value of true:
8afbe368:compiler homefolder$ java returnBoolTrue
true
The following program printString when converted to JVM bytecode returns the expression of a string containing Hello World!:
8afbe368:compiler homefolder$ java printString
Hello World!
The following program opAddInts when converted to JVM bytecode returns the operation of adding two integers together 10 + 5:
8afbe368:compiler homefolder$ java opAddInts
15
The following program opMinusInts when converted to JVM bytecode returns the operation of subtracting an integer from another 100 - 35:
8afbe368:compiler homefolder$ java opMinusInts
65
The following program opMultiplyInts when converted to JVM bytecode returns the operation of multiplies two integers together 235 * 19:
8afbe368:compiler homefolder$ java opMultiplyInts
4465
The following program opDivideInts when converted to JVM bytecode returns the operation of divides two integers 345 * 15:
8afbe368:compiler homefolder$ java opDivideInts
23
The following program printStringBool when converted to JVM bytecode returns a string and a Boolean:
8afbe368:compiler homefolder$ java printStringBool
Hello World!
true
The following program printStringInts when converted to JVM bytecode returns both an integer and string:
8afbe368:compiler homefolder$ java printStringBool
Hello World!
42
The practical presented a number of difficulties. One of them was when trying to compose a program using multiple expressions. I found this difficult and from looking back, I needed to make one or two design decisions in order to compile multiple expressions. If I had been more aware and more accustomed to breaking down the components of the language – perhaps I would have been able to identify the design choices sooner. This would have enabled me to do further tests on both grouping and raising exceptions. Another issue was trying to decide on the functionalities of both the Parallel Pipeline and Task Farm syntax and what it was they were meant to do. However, I am happy with the attempt and the practical introduced important methods and concepts.