Ok FillYourBrain, I am trying to fill my brain. I don't see how assembly isn't trivial because there isn't much abstraction to it...do you think you could dumb down to me (seriously) and explain it in human terms? I thought something abstract was just an idea, for example shape could be a base class because it is an abstract idea. Rectangle and square on the other hand are not abstract, because they are more specific and you can create instances of them.
In order to write a compiler for Microsoft, you need to use the system interface. You would need to understand it in detail.Originally posted by Shadow12345
Troll_King what do you mean by 'it seems that writing a non trivial language would be difficult' what do you mean non trivial? Is an assembly language non trivial? Does that mean it can't use conditional statements (such as ifs and whiles?)
I don't know any asm.
And what do you mean write a framework that utilizes an intermediate language...do you mean like databasing with SQL? SQL is kind of like an intermediate/simple language used for controlling how data is accessed from databases.
A framework is an abstraction that takes away some of the complication of a poorly designed system interface such as Win32.
abstraction.... hmmmm.... how do I describe this in english...
machine language = lowest level of abstraction. Not abstract at all.
assembly = slightly abstracted looks more readable but its not machine language
high level language = high level of abstraction meaning they made it much different than machine language and more readable to us. More abstract
"You are stupid! You are stupid! Oh, and don't forget, you are STUPID!" - Dexter
It's better just to write a trivial programming language for MS Windows, not a compiler. There is a point where you don't want to write systems for MS, infact it's a bad idea. A compiler is a problem and you might have a difficult time acquiring the resources.
