Being a foss enthusiast I can configure most of my software in way too many ways. However I noticed that this is not true for most compilers. Which got me thinking: why isn’t that the case. In gcc (or your favorite compiler tool) I have a shitload of options about what are errors and warnings and how the code should be compiled and tons of other options. But not on how the code should be interpreted and what the code should look like.

Why can’t I simply add a module to a build process to make it [objective oriented | have indentation for brackets | automatically allocate memory | automatically assume types | auto forward-declarate | some other thing that differentiates one language from another]* ? Its so weird that I have a pdf reader that has an option to set the window icon, a mail client that lets me specify regex to search for a mentioned but forgotten attachment and play a game that lets me set my texture picmip resolution. But that the tool (gcc) to build these things has not even got a config file build in. We have build tools around them to supply arguments.

This could look like the following: ( oversimplified )

  1. preprocess
  2. compile
  3. assemble
  4. link

v

  1. add brackets from indentation
  2. preprocess
  3. check if objective oriented constraints are all satisfied
  4. do something else
  5. compile
  6. assemble
  7. run assembly through as an example ai for antivirus scanning
  8. link
  9. run test

There could also be a fork in this process: sending for example the source code both to a compiler and an interpreter to detect edge case behavior while compiling. Or compile with both automatic typing and your defined typing so that when rounding errors are big you can instantly compare with a dynamically typed version of your program. Or the other way around, maybe you want different parts of your code to be handled with different preprocessors.

The build process should be configured per project for things about the input like syntax and per computer for things about the output like optimizations.

There are of course some drawbacks, one being a trust issue where someone pulls in a obscure module to build malicious releases. It probably also is harder to maintain stability when you have to keep in mind that your preprocessor isn’t the first to be run. And your compiling process can take a lot longer if you have to go through multiple pre, post or even compilation phases.

If you know such a build tool, or c (: haha :) some obvious reasons that this should not exist, please let me know. Thank you for reading this lenghty post.

Thanks for the comments, based on them I think I can better explain what I want. I would like a language that has got minimal specification so its preprocessor, compiler, assembler and linker are a collection of plugins rather than one chunky program.

So the compiler reads for example a line. void main(int argc, char argv) and then all main body plugins get a event_newline. The function plugin reads this and creates a new object that contains the function main. Then sets an event_functionBody that is caught by other plugin(s) to read the contents of main and return what it has to do.

        • jeffhykin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “Yeah we could make single defacto config, one that requires no additional dependencies, and one that entirely skips the mess of cli-args-via-env-vars … OR 😏 We could make users pick one of several competing options, all of which do effectively the same thing but are mostly incompatible with each other and allow for a new tabs-vs-spaces-kind-of debate while also not letting you understand other peoples code bases unless you learn all of them. And, not only does it require everyone to install a separate binary, but also they need to somewhat coordinate on which version–versions that are independent from the gcc version but must be kinda-sorta-coordinated with the gcc version.”

          Sorry, I’m not convinced

          • bizdelnick@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I agree. The problem is that we already have a lot of compatibility breaking options in gcc: different language standards, non-standard extensions, language features that can be disabled, warnings that can be turned into errors… Multiplying them is not the thing that will make a programming language/compiler better.

    • spykyvenatorOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not trying to target gcc specifically but compilers in general. I just know gcc best which is why its in my examples.

      • bizdelnick@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, every C/C++ compiler is overcomplicated because it has a preprocessor, provide numerous pragmas, attributes etc. etc. What you want is not just a new compiler, it is a new customizable language.