D - Announce leds 00.07 for linux ( and java to D)
- Ant (58/58) Jan 31 2004 I uploaded some improvements to leds (still Linux only).
- Ben Hinkle (18/76) Jan 31 2004 Glad to see you are still posting and contributing!
- Ant (16/56) Jan 31 2004 Absolutly! it's surprising how java looks so much as a D subset!
I uploaded some improvements to leds (still Linux only). This release is aimed to make leds more user friendly. You need DUI 00.09_85 to go with it. see the manual at: http://leds.sourceforge.net/userManualPage.html get it at: http://sourceforge.net/projects/leds main page at: http://leds.sourceforge.net/ have fun. ------------------ Java support. The leds D parser now understands java. Actually it just knows that package is module and that the constructores names are not 'this'. The idea was to parse a java source file and save it as D. I still think we should create D Vector and String classes. that will be easy and save us a lot of trouble on the conversion) java hash tables should be easy to convert to object[object] or something like that. For the D gui project, and in fact any java conversion, it would be smart to have quite a few of java "basic" classes implemented in D. That will depend on the project but I'm foreseeing a wide D implementation of java.lang, java.util maybe io and... I guess Walter won't like the idea but a full D implementation of the java core packages could be a good thing (I'm familiar with java, and not with python so maybe the java libs aren't as good as I think but a lot of java already exists out there). The idea of using my D parser is that it understands the structure of the java code (as it is a subset of D, well not really but the only thing I can remember that D doesn't support are the java static initializations; maybe putting them in a method to be called by all constructores that don't have a call to other constructor(?)) If we understant the code structure the conversion could be done at 2 levels, structure and function bodies, that might be essencial. I'm not sure it's a good idea. A few new projects to parse D were announced recently. Maybe one of those could better be adapted for this task. Mine was design to understand only the outline of a program. nevertheless under the "Tools" menu there is an item "new as D". Open a java source file and "new as D" will create a new buffer with package replaced by module and the constructores names replaced (maybe, can't remember). (my parseD package can be compiled independently of leds with a couple lines commented out an a new main function) The first problem are the comments. The parser was designed to remember the doc comments only (/** */). patches are in but not complete. I'm not too confident about this my idea of java to D... :( This efford, even if useless for java to D conversions, was good for leds because it showed that java support is easy to implement for leds. That will broden the potencial users base of leds. Ant (did I write all that!?)
Jan 31 2004
Glad to see you are still posting and contributing! "Ant" <Ant_member pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bvgtpm$28bk$1 digitaldaemon.com...I uploaded some improvements to leds (still Linux only). This release is aimed to make leds more user friendly. You need DUI 00.09_85 to go with it. see the manual at: http://leds.sourceforge.net/userManualPage.html get it at: http://sourceforge.net/projects/leds main page at: http://leds.sourceforge.net/ have fun. ------------------ Java support. The leds D parser now understands java. Actually it just knows that package is module and that the constructores names are not 'this'. The idea was to parse a java source file and save it as D.Fun, but that sounds hard to do. Is the generated code readable? I've run Pascal code through a Pascal-to-C converter (Google on p2c or something like that) and an important part is adding comments in the generated code that point back to the source. That way humans can go through it afterwards and make sense of it all. As you say below, the hardest part will be figuring out what to do with the library calls.I still think we should create D Vector and String classes. that will be easy and save us a lot of trouble on the conversion) java hash tables should be easy to convert to object[object] or something like that.PersonallyFor the D gui project, and in fact any java conversion, it would be smart to have quite a few of java "basic" classes implemented in D. That will depend on the project but I'm foreseeing a wide D implementation of java.lang, java.util maybe io and... I guess Walter won't like the idea but a full D implementation of the java core packages could be a good thing (I'm familiar with java, and not with python so maybe the java libs aren't as good as I think but a lot of java already exists out there).What does the "mapping" of J2SE to Phobos look like? I haven't tried to match packages up to modules.The idea of using my D parser is that it understands the structure of the java code (as it is a subset of D, well not really but the only thing I can remember that D doesn't support are the java static initializations; maybe putting them in a method to be called by all constructores that don't have a call to other constructor(?)) If we understant the code structure the conversion could be done at 2 levels, structure and function bodies, that might be essencial. I'm not sure it's a good idea. A few new projects to parse D were announced recently. Maybe one of those could better be adapted for this task. Mine was design to understand only the outline of a program. nevertheless under the "Tools" menu there is an item "new as D". Open a java source file and "new as D" will create a new buffer with package replaced by module and the constructores names replaced (maybe, can't remember). (my parseD package can be compiled independently of leds with a couple lines commented out an a new main function) The first problem are the comments. The parser was designed to remember the doc comments only (/** */). patches are in but not complete. I'm not too confident about this my idea of java to D... :(It seems like a big job, but go for it if you want to. Maybe a smaller goal would be to have a partial translator and a document aimed at Java programmers describing how to switch to D from Java. Kindof like the semi-tutorials about switching to D from C and C++ that Walter has in the D documentation.This efford, even if useless for java to D conversions, was good for leds because it showed that java support is easy to implement for leds. That will broden the potencial users base of leds. Ant (did I write all that!?)
Jan 31 2004
Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> In article <bvh0v3$2dj9$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Ben Hinkle says...Glad to see you are still posting and contributing! "Ant" <Ant_member pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bvgtpm$28bk$1 digitaldaemon.com...Absolutly! it's surprising how java looks so much as a D subset! I'm not concerned about formating there are enough utils out there for that. Eventually leds will have it's own as an addition to the code parser.Java support. The leds D parser now understands java. Actually it just knows that package is module and that the constructores names are not 'this'. The idea was to parse a java source file and save it as D.Fun, but that sounds hard to do. Is the generated code readable?I've run Pascal code through a Pascal-to-C converter (Google on p2c or something like that) and an important part is adding comments in the generated code that point back to the source. That way humans can go through it afterwards and make sense of it all.I don't think we need to do it from java to D... It's very similar.As you say below, the hardest part will be figuring out what to do with the library calls.uggly. phobos is a mixure of procedural on OO !? At first I thought phobos was suppose to be a very low level lib and that an OO lib would be created on top of it. That's not the case obviously.I still think we should create D Vector and String classes. that will be easy and save us a lot of trouble on the conversion) java hash tables should be easy to convert to object[object] or something like that.PersonallyFor the D gui project, and in fact any java conversion, it would be smart to have quite a few of java "basic" classes implemented in D. That will depend on the project but I'm foreseeing a wide D implementation of java.lang, java.util maybe io and... I guess Walter won't like the idea but a full D implementation of the java core packages could be a good thing (I'm familiar with java, and not with python so maybe the java libs aren't as good as I think but a lot of java already exists out there).What does the "mapping" of J2SE to Phobos look like? I haven't tried to match packages up to modules...The idea of using my D parser is that it understands the structure of the java codeI have enough projects already but it might not be that difficult... not aiming for 100% conversion, the last 10% might be very complex, human intervention would be needed after. Anyway java support for leds is climing up on the priority list. AntIf we understant the code structure the conversion could be done at 2 levels, structure and function bodies, that might be essencial. I'm not sure it's a good idea.It seems like a big job, but go for it if you want to.
Jan 31 2004