Choosing A Host Language


If you’re writing an interpreter, what language do you choose? What effect does your decision have?

I’ve noticed that many languages inherit features from the host implementation language. Haskell code uses the C preprocessor. PHP standard library functions sometimes have out parameters. Python’s exceptions expose error numbers from C headers.

If you write an interpreter for a new wonderful programming language in C, you will end up writing a lot of C. The majority of your time will be taken up by implementation details in C. It’s hard to avoid picking up features of the host language without weighing their merits.

I only know two ways to avoid this. One approach is to use a high-level language with semantics close to your target language. This helps you avoid regularly using host language features that are inappropriate for your target language. Low-level details can be also be distraction, slowing you down, since your semantics will change significantly early on.

The other approach is to avoid implementation-specific thinking. This is my favourite way of building the right features. This separates the design process into two steps.

First, you consider your goals and what features would meet those goals. You write them down, giving examples of what usage looks like. Once you’ve settled on what the feature should look like, only then start worrying about implementation.

It’s too easy to think about implementation too early in the design process. Many GUI apps have been written that expose too much database structure. Don’t think about implementation prematurely.

Where does this leave Trifle lisp? Trifle is written in RPython.

RPython has garbage collection and higher-order functions, which suits Trifle. It helps write fast interpreters quickly. However, unlike Trifle, it’s statically typed, lacks closures and it’s (essentially) compiled.

This is a major motivation behind Trifle Lisp Design documents. We need to consider the range of possible design decisions, and make decisions only according to Trifle’s goals.

This involves comparing many other programming languages design choices, and iterating the interpreter design. It’s also a whole lot of fun!

Recent Posts

These Weeks in Remacs III

Helpful: Adding Contextual Help to Emacs

Suggest.el: Synthesising Constants

Optimising Dash.el

These Weeks in Remacs II