So let's say I have a string containing some code in C, predictably read from a file that has other things in it besides normal C code. How would I turn this string into code usable by the program? Do I have to write an entire interpreter, or is there a library that already does this for me? The code in question may call subroutines that I declared in my actual C file, so one that only accounts for stock C commands may not work.
Whoo. With C this is actually pretty hard.
You've basically got a couple of options:
interpret the code
To do this, you'll hae to write an interpreter, and interpreting C is a fairly hard problem. There have been C interpreters available in the past, but I haven't read about one recently. In any case, unless you reallY really need this, writing your own interpreter is a big project.
Googling does show a couple of open-source (partial) C interpreters, like picoc
compile and dynamically load
If you can capture the code and wrap it so it makes a syntactically complete C source file, then you can compile it into a C dynamically loadable library: a DLL in Windows, or a .so in more variants of UNIX. Then you could load the result at runtime.
Now, what normally would lead someone to do this is a need to be able to express some complicated scripting functions. Have you considered the possibility of using a different language? Python, Scheme (guile) and Lua are easily available to add as a scripting language to a C application.
C has nothing of this nature. That's because C is compiled, and the compiler needs to do a lot of building of the code before the code starts running (hence receives a string as input) that it can't really change on the fly that easily. Compiled languages have a rigidity to them while interpreted languages have a flexibility.
You're thinking of Perl, Python PHP etc. and so called "fourth generation languages." I'm sure there's a technical term in c.s. for this flexibility, but C doesn't have it. You'll need to switch to one of these languages (and give up performance) if you have a task that requires this sort of string use much. Check out Perl's /e flag with regexes, for instance.
In C, you'll need to design your application so you don't need to do this. This is generally quite doable, as for its non-OO-ness and other deficiencies many huge, complex applications run on well-written C just fine.
I'm sitting with massive amounts of legacy C code that needs to be converted to Ruby for a project.
I've seen Ruby to C translators online, but not the other way around. Would there be a simple way to approach this particular problem?
You'll either have to write a C to Ruby translator, which is possible but the effort might not be justifiable, or you could split the C code up into smaller modules that you can create Ruby wrappers for as a first step. Once they're all wrapped in Ruby and the main control flow is done in Ruby, you can write a test harness (both to verify correctness of your replacement code and to aid reverse engineering) and start replacing the C modules with Ruby modules.
The divide & conquer approach should work with regular Ruby if you use the modules as native extensions but obviously this will cause further problems if you're targeting something like JRuby as your runtime environment. If you want to do something similar in JRuby as per your comment, you're looking at wrapping the C modules in JNI and calling through from the JVM that way. Either way will allow your C code to interact with the Ruby code, but the two approaches are not interchangeable.
Neither approach is going to be quick and both are going to be a lot of work.
You could:
Write a C interpreter in Ruby (very hard).
Wrap the compiled C code with something like SWIG (much easier).
Programming in C and programming in Ruby bear completely different programming paradigms. So while the old saying that you can write Fortran (or C in this case) code in any language is true, the Ruby code that you would eventually get by machine translation wouldn't be Ruby at all, except syntactically.
So, IMHO, any way other than manual (and done by proficient Rubyists, I might add) would be either impossible, or at least not useful at all.
Maybe you can try this https://github.com/jackieju/CPP2Ruby/
It's fresh for cpp but existed longer for c to ruby
You can try Abap2Ruby. It can also convert cpp to ruby.
I have a requirement for porting some existing C code to a IEC 61131-3 compliant PLC.
I have some options of splitting the code into discrete function blocks and weaving those blocks into a standard solution (Ladder, FB, Structured Text etc). But this would require carving up the C code in order to build each function block.
When looking at the IEC spec I realsied that the IEC Instruction List form could be a target language for a compiler. The wikepedia article lists two development tools:
CoDeSys
Beremiz
But these seem to be targeted compiling IEC languages to C, not C to IEC.
Another possible solution is to push the C code through a C to Pascal translator and use that as a starting point for a Structured Text solution.
If not any of these I will go down the route of splitting the code up into function blocks.
Edit
As prompted by mlieson's reply I should have mentioned that the C code is an existing real-time control system. So the programs algorithms should already suit a PLC environment.
Maybe this answer comes too late but it is possible to call C code from CoDeSys thanks to an external library.
You can find documentation on the CoDeSys forum at http://forum-en.3s-software.com/viewtopic.php?t=620
That would give you to use your C code into the PLC with minor modifcations. You'll just have to define the functions or function blocks interfaces.
My guess is that a C to Pascal translator will not get you near enough for being worth the trouble. Structured text looks a lot like Pascal, but there are differences that you will need to fix everywhere.
Not a bug issue, but don't forget that PLCs runtime enviroment is a bit different. A C applications starts at main() and ends when main() returns. A PLC calls it main() over and over again, 100:s of times per second and it never ends.
Usally lengthy calculations and I/O needs to be coded in diffent fashion than a C appliation would use.
Unless your C source is many many thousands lines of code - Rewrite it.
It is impossible. To be short: the IL language is a 4GL (i.e. limited to
the domain, as well as other IEC 61131-3 languages -- ST, FBD, LD, SFC).
The C language is a 3GL.
To understand the problem, try to answer the question, which way to
express in IL manipulations with a pointer? for example, to express call a
function by a pointer. What about interrupts? Low level access to the
peripherial devices?
(really, there are more problems)
BTW, there is the Reflex language, aka "C with processes". Reflex is a 4GL for the
control domain with C-like syntax. But the known translators produce
C-code and Python-code.
If the amount of code to convert is a few thousand lines, recoding by hand is probably your best bet.
If you have lots of code to convert, then an automated tool might be very effective.
Using the DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit we've built translators to map mechanical motion diagrams into RLL (PLC) code. DMS also has full C parser/analyzers/front ends. The pieces are there to build a C to RLL code.
This isn't an easy task. It likely takes 6-12 man-months to configure DMS to something resembling what you want. If that's less than what it takes to do by hand, then its the right way to do it.
There are a few IEC development environments and target hardware that can use C blocks... I would also take a look at the reasons why it HAS to be an IEC-61131 complaint target. I have written extensively on compliance and why it doesn't mean squat.
SOFTplc corp can help I'm sure with user defined loadable modules... and they can be in C..
Schneider also supports C function blocks...
Labview too!! not sure why IEC is important that's all!! the compiler if existed would create bad code for sure:)
Your best bet is to split your C code into smaller parts which can be recoded as PLC functional blocks and use C to PASCAL convertor for each block which you will rewrite in structured text. Prepare to do a lot of manual work since automated conversion will probably disappoint you.
Also take a look at this page: http://www.control.com/thread/1026228786
Every time I've done this, I just parsed and converted it by hand from C directly to ST. I only ran into a few functions that required complete rewrites, although there was very little that dealt with pointers, which is something that ST generally chokes on, unfortunately.
Using the existing C code as blocks that are called by the PLC program would have the added advantage that the C blocks could run at the same periodicity that they did before, and their function is likely already well documented and tested. This would minimize any effect on changes from the existing control system. This is an architecture for controls with software PLCs that I have seen used before.
I've heard that there are some things one cannot do as a computer programmer, but I don't know what they are. One thing that occurred to me recently was: wouldn't it be nice to have a class that could make a copy of the source of the program it runs, modify that program and add a method to the class that it is, and then run the copy of the program and terminate itself. Is it possible for code to write code?
If you want to learn about the limits of computability, read about the halting problem
In computability theory, the halting
problem is a decision problem which
can be stated as follows: given a
description of a program and a finite
input, decide whether the program
finishes running or will run forever,
given that input.
Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a
general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all
possible program-input pairs cannot exist
Start by looking at quines, then at Macro-Assemblers and then lex & yacc, and flex & bison. Then consider self-modifying code.
Here's a quine (formatted, use the output as the new input):
#include<stdio.h>
main()
{
char *a = "main(){char *a = %c%s%c; int b = '%c'; printf(a,b,a,b,b);}";
int b = '"';
printf(a,b,a,b,b);
}
Now if you're just looking for things programmers can't do look for the opposite of np-complete.
Sure it is. That's how a lot of viruses work!
Get your head around this: computability theory.
Yes, that's what most Lisp macros do (for just one example).
Yes it certainly is, though maybe not in the context you are referring to check out this post on t4.
If you look at Functional Programming that has many opportunities to write code that generates further code, the way that a language like Lisp doesn't differentiate between code and data is a significant part of it's power.
Rails generates the various default model and controller classes from the database schema when it's creating a new application. It's quite standard to do this kind of thing with dynamic languages- I have a few bits of PHP around that generate php files, just because it was the simplest solution to the problem I was dealing with at the time.
So it is possible. As for the question you are asking, though- that is perhaps a little vague- what environment and language are you using? What do you expect the code to do and why does it need to be added to? A concrete example may bring more directly relevant responses.
Yes it is possible to create code generators.
Most of the time they take user input and produce valid code. But there are other possibilities.
Self modifying programes are also possible. But they were more common in the dos era.
Of course you can! In fact, if you use a dynamic language, the class can change itself (or another class) while the program is still running. It can even create new classes that didn't exist before. This is called metaprogramming, and it lets your code become very flexible.
You are confusing/conflating two meanings of the word "write". One meaning is the physical writing of bytes to a medium, and the other is designing software. Of course you can have the program do the former, if it was designed to do so.
The only way for a program to do something that the programmer did not explicitly intend it to do, is to behave like a living creature: mutate (incorporate in itself bits of environment), and replicate different mutants at different rates (to avoid complete extinction, if a mutation is terminal).
Sure it is. I wrote an effect for Paint.NET* that gives you an editor and allows you to write a graphical effect "on the fly". When you pause typing it compiles it to a dll, loads it and executes it. Now, in the editor, you only need to write the actual render function, everything else necessary to create a dll is written by the editor and sent to the C# compiler.
You can download it free here: http://www.boltbait.com/pdn/codelab/
In fact, there is even an option to see all the code that was written for you before it is sent to the compiler. The help file (linked above) talks all about it.
The source code is available to download from that page as well.
*Paint.NET is a free image editor that you can download here: http://getpaint.net
In relation to artificial intelligence, take a look at Evolutionary algorithms.
make a copy of the source of the program it runs, modify that program and add a method to the class that it is, and then run the copy of the program and terminate itself
You can also generate code, build it into a library instead of an executable, and then dynamically load the library without even exiting the program that is currently running.
Dynamic languages usually don't work quite as you suggest, in that they don't have a completely separate compilation step. It isn't necessary for a program to modify its own source code, recompile, and start from scratch. Typically the new functionality is compiled and linked in on the fly.
Common Lisp is a very good language to practice this in, but there are others where you can created code and run it then and there. Typically, this will be through a function called "eval" or something similar. Perl has an "eval" function, and it's generally common for scripting languages to have the ability.
There are a lot of programs that write other programs, such as yacc or bison, but they don't have the same dynamic quality you seem to be looking for.
Take a look at Langtom's loop. This is the simplest example of self-reproducing "program".
There is a whole class of such things called "Code Generators". (Although, a compiler also fits the description as you set it). And those describe the two areas of these beasts.
Most code generates, take some form of user input (most take a Database schema) and product source code which is then compiled.
More advanced ones can output executable code. With .NET, there's a whole namespace (System.CodeDom) dedicated to the create of executable code. The these objects, you can take C# (or another language) code, compile it, and link it into your currently running program.
I do this in PHP.
To persist settings for a class, I keep a local variable called $data. $data is just a dictionary/hashtable/assoc-array (depending on where you come from).
When you load the class, it includes a php file which basically defines data. When I save the class, it writes the PHP out for each value of data. It's a slow write process (and there are currently some concurrency issues) but it's faster than light to read. So much faster (and lighter) than using a database.
Something like this wouldn't work for all languages. It works for me in PHP because PHP is very much on-the-fly.
It has always been possible to write code generators. With XML technology, the use of code generators can be an essential tool. Suppose you work for a company that has to deal with XML files from other companies. It is relatively straightforward to write a program that uses the XML parser to parse the new XML file and write another program that has all the callback functions set up to read XML files of that format. You would still have to edit the new program to make it specific to your needs, but the development time when a new XML file (new structure, new names) is cut down a lot by using this type of code generator. In my opinion, this is part of the strength of XML technology.
Lisp lisp lisp lisp :p
Joking, if you want code that generates code to run and you got time to loose learning it and breaking your mind with recursive stuff generating more code, try to learn lisp :)
(eval '(or true false))
wouldn't it be nice to have a class that could make a copy of the source of the program it runs, modify that program and add a method to the class that it is, and then run the copy of the program and terminate itself
There are almost no cases where that would solve a problem that cannot be solved "better" using non-self-modifying code..
That said, there are some very common (useful) cases of code writing other code.. The most obvious being any server-side web-application, which generates HTML/Javascript (well, HTML is markup, but it's identical in theory). Also any script that alters a terminals environment usually outputs a shell script that is eval'd by the parent shell. wxGlade generates code to that creates bare-bone wx-based GUIs.
See our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit. This is general purpose machinery to read and modify programs, or generate programs by assembling fragments.
This is one of the fundamental questions of Artificial Intelligence. Personally I hope it is not possible - otherwise soon I'll be out of a job!!! :)
It is called meta-programming and is both a nice way of writing useful programs, and an interesting research topic. Jacques Pitrat's Artificial Beings: the conscience of a conscious machine book should interest you a lot. It is mostly related to meta-knowledge based computer programs.
Another related term is multi-staged programming (because there are several stages of programs, each generating the next one).
I understand that the Ruby 1.8 AST is traversed at runtime using a big switch statement, and many things like calling a method in a class or parent module involve the interpreter looking up and down the tree as it goes. Is there a straightforward way of accessing this AST in a Ruby C extension? Does it involve the Ruby extension API, or necessitate hacking the internal data structures directly?
A good starting point is probably to read the source of the ParseTree library, which lets you get at and mess with the AST from ruby.
Thanks for the tip. You're right - ParseTree seems to be the only code out there with any manipulation of the AST going on, except that it's actually written in RubyInline.
So, it's a strange mixture between Ruby and C code. Very interesting reading, though.
The other reference of course is eval.c from Ruby itself.
It's going to take a fair bit of reading of both, to get my head around it.