Binary executable format for new language

[Mark R.Bannister]

Hi,

I'm currently designing a new language that compiles into a bytecode
format. I have a choice:

a) Design my own binary file format for the bytecode, symbols and data

b) Use an existing standard for the file format, if existing tools
would then be of use (but the format must not prevent my file from
being portable)


What do you think?

Cheers,
Mark.

[Joona I Palaste]

Re: Binary executable format for new language

Mark R.Bannister <Chapter33@aol. com> scribbled the following:[color=blue]
> Hi,[/color]
[color=blue]
> I'm currently designing a new language that compiles into a bytecode
> format. I have a choice:[/color]
[color=blue]
> a) Design my own binary file format for the bytecode, symbols and data[/color]
[color=blue]
> b) Use an existing standard for the file format, if existing tools
> would then be of use (but the format must not prevent my file from
> being portable)[/color]
[color=blue]
> What do you think?[/color]

Um, not to be rude or impolite or anything, but this doesn't really
have anything to do with C. Perhaps you could ask this on
comp.programmin g?

--
/-- Joona Palaste (palaste@cc.hel sinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"B-but Angus! You're a dragon!"
- Mickey Mouse

[Noah Roberts]

Re: Binary executable format for new language

Mark R.Bannister wrote:[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently designing a new language that compiles into a bytecode
> format. I have a choice:
>
> a) Design my own binary file format for the bytecode, symbols and data
>
> b) Use an existing standard for the file format, if existing tools
> would then be of use (but the format must not prevent my file from
> being portable)[/color]

Unless you are doing an interpreter like the JVM 'a' is not possible
afaik. The OS needs to know how to load and run your executable and
this is very platform specific. Most languages allow you to compile
into several different executable formats.

and yes, comp.programmin g would be a better group.

NR

[Glen Herrmannsfeldt]

Re: Binary executable format for new language


"Mark R.Bannister" <Chapter33@aol. com> wrote in message
news:26d139e.03 11060952.53afc7 38@posting.goog le.com...[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently designing a new language that compiles into a bytecode
> format. I have a choice:
>
> a) Design my own binary file format for the bytecode, symbols and data
>
> b) Use an existing standard for the file format, if existing tools
> would then be of use (but the format must not prevent my file from
> being portable)[/color]

Are you expecting to compile C into this bytecode? If so, it might be on
topic in this group. There are some possibilities for the compiled code
that exclude the possibility of writing a C compiler.

Usually you will find more people interested in using it if you use an
existing system. That is one reason for language standards. For that
reason, I would prefer choice (b).

-- glen

[Dan Pop]

Re: Binary executable format for new language

In <9Hyqb.94064$27 5.262565@attbi_ s53> "Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.calte ch.edu> writes:

[color=blue]
>"Mark R.Bannister" <Chapter33@aol. com> wrote in message
>news:26d139e.0 311060952.53afc 738@posting.goo gle.com...[color=green]
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm currently designing a new language that compiles into a bytecode
>> format. I have a choice:
>>
>> a) Design my own binary file format for the bytecode, symbols and data
>>
>> b) Use an existing standard for the file format, if existing tools
>> would then be of use (but the format must not prevent my file from
>> being portable)[/color][/color]

What was your C question?
[color=blue]
>Are you expecting to compile C into this bytecode? If so, it might be on
>topic in this group.[/color]

By what kind of logic? Does this newsgroup deal with C compiler
internals?

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Dan.Pop@ifh.de

[Joona I Palaste]

Re: Binary executable format for new language

Dan Pop <Dan.Pop@cern.c h> scribbled the following:[color=blue]
> In <9Hyqb.94064$27 5.262565@attbi_ s53> "Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.calte ch.edu> writes:[color=green]
>>"Mark R.Bannister" <Chapter33@aol. com> wrote in message
>>news:26d139e. 0311060952.53af c738@posting.go ogle.com...[color=darkred]
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm currently designing a new language that compiles into a bytecode
>>> format. I have a choice:[/color][/color][/color]

(snip)
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Are you expecting to compile C into this bytecode? If so, it might be on
>>topic in this group.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> By what kind of logic? Does this newsgroup deal with C compiler
> internals?[/color]

It pretty much has to, Dan. It also has to deal with C++ and Java. Not
only that, but it also has to deal with gardening, car mechanics,
classic literature, discussion about whether bitter is better than
lager, and so on. We don't want to come across as elitistic snobs for
which nothing is good enough, do we?

--
/-- Joona Palaste (palaste@cc.hel sinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"It was, er, quite bookish."
- Horace Boothroyd

[Peter Shaggy Haywood]

Re: Binary executable format for new language

Groovy hepcat Mark R.Bannister was jivin' on 6 Nov 2003 09:52:25 -0800
in comp.lang.c.
Binary executable format for new language's a cool scene! Dig it!
[color=blue]
>I'm currently designing a new language that compiles into a bytecode
>format. I have a choice:
>
>a) Design my own binary file format for the bytecode, symbols and data
>
>b) Use an existing standard for the file format, if existing tools
>would then be of use (but the format must not prevent my file from
>being portable)
>
>What do you think?[/color]

I think this is off topic. I think you should find a more
appropriate place to post this. I think you should refrain from making
off topic posts in future.

--

Dig the even newer still, yet more improved, sig!

http://alphalink.com.au/~phaywood/

"Ain't I'm a dog?" - Ronny Self, Ain't I'm a Dog, written by G. Sherry & W. Walker.
I know it's not "technicall y correct" English; but since when was rock & roll "technicall y correct"?