Related
I'm a web developer mostly working in Ruby and C#..
I wanna learn a low level language so i dont look like an ass infront of my (computer science expert) boss.
Ive heard a lot of purist buzz about how assembly language is the only way to learn how computers actually work, but on the other hand C would probably be more useful as a language rather than just for theory.
So my question is..
Would Learning C teach me enough computer science theory / low level programming to not look like a common dandy (complete tool)?
Thanks!
Daniel
Thanks guys!
Some really great answers,
I think i'll learn C just to get a grasp of memory management, but i think your right and i'll be better off studying more of the languages i use!
First learn the actual theory. Learning C's syntax means nothing if you can't do anything meaningful with it. After you have a solid grasp of how algorithms and data structures work, this knowledge will be appliable in most languages you'll probably use.
If you're planning to work in C# and Ruby, I don't see the point in learning assembler just for the sake of doing so.
You'll be fine learning just C since it's C.
You can do "real programming" in any language, as long as you do it right.
Would Learning C teach me enough
computer science theory / low level
programming to not look like a common
dandy (complete tool)?
You're using C# which can perform unmanaged pointer manipulation, not too far off what you can achieve in C++ land. For instance, games can be successfully programmed in C#, although most games will be C++.
Assembler is basically moving bits of memory around and sometimes doing a bad job of it too if you don't know what you're doing. C++/C compilers create quite good assembly code underneath, so why would you do it yourself unless you had to write low-level driver software. The only bit of assembler in our 2,000,000 lines of mixed C++/C# code is to detect VMWare.
I don't think in this modern age and given your description of your job there is much call for you to know about how many registers you can use on your processor. By all means learn C++, but as mentioned before, learning syntax is not the same as learning how to apply it.
At a minimum learn and understand patterns (Gang of four), OO design, understand the implications and benefits of different testing methodologies and the impact of all this on business costs.
Learning C will get you all the information you need and be able to accomplish things in a reasonable time.
I suggest you do a few meaningful projects in C, then one or two in an Assembler dialect, maybe for a Microcontroller or specializing in SSE/MMX.
In the end it all comes down to opcodes, registers, and addressing modes, of which C teaches you absolutely nothing. However, assemblers are tightly coupled to their platforms; learning how to write assembler on x86 won't help you much when you work on a Sparc or PA-RISC box.
C really isn't going to teach you much that other languages won't in terms of theory. The thing about C is that it doesn't provide many tools or abstractions beyond naked pointers and byte streams. You have to roll all your own containers (lists, stacks, queues, etc.), and if you want them to be generic, you have to figure out how to separate the code that needs to be type aware (assignments and comparisons) from the general algorithm. You have to manage your own memory. Text processing is a pain in the ass (C doesn't even provide a dedicated string type).
Is that something that would be useful to know for your day-to-day work, or to impress your boss? Maybe. I'm not sure how you would apply that knowledge in your C# or Ruby code, which operates in a virtual machine (as opposed to native binaries generated from C).
You want to impress your boss with Computer Science knowledge, read up on Turing machines and Markov algorithms.
I don't think knowledge of Assembler would make you a better Ruby / C# programmer.
You can go as low level as writing to a disk using a magnetized needle, but if your programs aren't working or are insecure, you wouldn't have gained anything by it.
Learning the syntax of a "new" language won't assist you in gaining more knowledge of the depth of programming.
Real programming is not about a particular low level programming languge. To understand how a computer works it would be not bad to know some CPU instructions and how the hardware processes them.
To become a good programmer it is absolutely not necessary to know how the hardware works, except you want to program hardware.
I wouldn't worry about looking like a fool in front of that boss if that's the criteria your boss has for not being a fool.
C and Assembler isn't the best languages if you want to learn computer science. As you know Ruby and C# I guess you know some object orientation.
"Real programming" works the same in every language and that's what you should really worry about. That being said, working up something in C is a very useful exercise/
Learning C won't necessarily teach you too much about how computers work, but it is a good access door to that, considering that it is still the language of choice for system programming.
Learning ASM is of course useful as well, but it's probably uncalled for if you want to apply it to your job. It might teach you a few useful concepts though, or at least help you get a better understanding of how CLR works (or in general, how bytecode compilation and bytecode-compiled code do their stuff). Maybe you could try learning ASM for an older/simpler platform; there's still a heavy Atari 2600 scene around, and due to the platform's inherent limitations, some of the hacks they do to squeeze some extra functions in a game are quite awesome. The modern x86_64 architecture is pretty complex and somewhat hairy, although that's more of a personal opinion than an actual fact. Learning to use a microcontroller might also get the job done, but be warned that many (most?) use a Harvard architecture (i.e. separate program and data memory) which is different from that of a typical general-purpose CPU.
ask your boss first, than do exactly what he tells you, finally ask again for feedback and review of the exercises you will do. act accordingly. repeat until he says "you now know more than me".
this is the more efficient way of exploiting the expertise of a real expert you have the luck to have, and will leave extremely positive impression forever.
it will be as difficult as learning C or assembler alone in your spare time.
I wanna learn a low level language so i dont look like an ass infront of my (computer science expert) boss.
This is like so true in many aspects, I learned c++, and haskell for similar reasons, I have no regrets since they taught me many things, but I do understand the peer pressure.
This is a 6 years old question, and it is interesting to see that no one mentioned a good textbook on programming that covers the fundamentals of computer science.
If you want to learn "real programming", just try to tackle
"Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs"
by MIT Press in your free time. It should cover most if not all of your curiosity with respect to programming whatever your level is.
There is also "The Art of Computer Programming" by Donald Knuth. Knuth is especially well versed in machine languages and other low level stuff.
Beware though both of these works are very dense.
Here is my two cents on how to approach them. First of all, they are not "tutorials" that sugar coat your way towards a skill, they introduce a scientific discipline in an appropriate manner, so the mind set of "what am I going to do with this? How can I use this ?" should be replaced by "how does this work ? What does this do ? Why does it do it this way ?".
Try to do the exercises included in the books, but don't push yourself too hard. If you can't do it, it is okay, pass to the next one.
However if you are not doing any of the exercises given in a section, you should take your time with the chapter, and revise it so that you can at least do couple of the exercises included for the section.
Just keep this up, and you would caught up with your boss/peer in no time. Some chapters/exercises might even be a subject of conversation if you feel like it. He might even like the fact that you are acquiring new skills, or not, don't take my word for it, I do programming not to deal with people.
Well, "Real Programming" doesn't refer to a specific language, or low level languages. In my mind, "real Programming" is the process of analyzing a task, deciding the best way to solve it, and putting that method into a set of simple steps, and then revising and editing as necessary until you have achieved your goal. From that, the language doesn't really matter, it's all in the thought process. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with high level languages, I use python all the time and love it. However, learning low level languages can really help develop your understanding programs and computers in general. would suggest c, because it is where c# and c++ stem from, and would provide a bases for understanding both those languages.
I've been learning C: it's a beautiful, well-thought-out language. However, it is so low-level that writing any sort of major project becomes tedious.
What higher-level language has the most C-like syntax—but without all the clutter that you find in something like C++. Does one exist?
What higher-level language has the most C-like syntax—but without all the clutter that you find in something like C++?
I'm going to answer a slightly different question:
What is a language that is like C in that it is well designed and beautifully thought out, is like C in that it is good for systems programming, allows people to program at a higher level than C, and is relatively uncluttered?
I don't think this question has a single right answer, but here are three worthy candidates (in alphabetical order):
D. The D language is designed essentially as a better, cleaner C++. Like C++, D is explicitly designed to incorporate a lot of features, but one hopes in a cleaner, more harmonious way than C++. A major difference that enables programmers to work at a higher level is that memory is managed automatically by the language and safety is guaranteed by the compiler (and run-time system) through garbage collection.
Go. Go scores very high on being well designed and beautifully thought out: Rob Pike is a master designer and has been practicing this particular craft for 25 years. Its explicit goal is to be uncluttered and to make systems programming "fun again". Go is still a new language, and Rob has learned much from Squeak, Newsqueak, Alef, and Limbo. Because Rob understands that a great design is one with no unnecessary parts, Go is clean and uncluttered. Its primary features that are higher-level than C are type safety, garbage collection, and an excellent concurrency model.
Java. Java has a well-designed core (see Jim Waldo's book Java: The Good Parts) but unfortunately suffers from the clutter that any mature, successful language accumulates. The features of Java that make it most suitable for higher-level programming are interfaces, garbage collection, and exceptions.
The common thread here is using garbage collection to relieve the programmer of the burden of memory management. This is a major boost to productivity.
Each of these languages has much to recommend it. My own taste is for languages that are small and simple, and I admire Rob Pike's body of work very highly, so if I had to pick one for myself, it would be Go, despite the fact that it is new and unproven.
In C++ you can write C code and have it compile successfully as C++ (mostly). Therefore, although I suggest that your term "clutter" is both derogatory and ambiguous, the only clutter you will have is what you choose to write yourself. You can use C++ as a bigger tool-bag without using all the tools (or clutter if you prefer).
The answer therefore is C++ whether you like it or not. Most other C-like languages add OO features, which is perhaps what you regard as clutter, but you do not get something for nothing and you need to have syntax to support the additional features. Such languages include:
Java
C#
Objective-C
D
Of these Objective-C is probably the most C-Like since it is a superset of C in the way that C++ is not quite. It is also the preferred language for OSX and iPhone/iPod Touch development, which may be attractive.
Java is ubiquitous but probably best described as superficially C-like. C# has limited cross-platform support but is the path of least resistance for Windows GUI development with excellent free development tools. C# also has a simpler but more restrictive OO implementation than C++ so may meet your requirements, but its resemblance to C/C++ can be misleading; it is fundamentally different in how it works in a similar manner to Java. D is somewhat of a niche, being developed by a single author (albeit the author of the once renowned Zortech/Symantec C++ compiler).
Regarding it being "low level" and "tedious", when embarking on a "major project", you would seldom start from scratch with only the standard library and OS API available, you would make use of third-party and in-house developed libraries to quickly develop higher level functionality. That said, an OO approach is generally much more amenable to this 'code-reuse' approach, and of course C++'s standard library and third-party libraries are more extensive (not least because it can use C libraries as well as C++ libraries). In fact I would suggest that apart form support for OO, the only thing that makes C++ higher-level is its extensibility via classes as first-class objects. It remains suitable as a systems-level language nonetheless.
Google's Go language has a similar syntax (though different enough I suppose) and semantics, though with garbage collection, polymorphism, etc., built into the language.
The D programming language is an attempt to be what C++ should have been (not bashing on C++ at all it is my primary language) and I quote from the website, "D is a systems programming language. Its focus is on combining the power and high performance of C and C++ with the programmer productivity of modern languages like Ruby and Python. Special attention is given to the needs of quality assurance, documentation, management, portability and reliability. " The issue with D is it is relatively new compared to a lot of languages but luckily it can still use C libraries which allows it to access a large pre-existing code base. Certainly worth checking out.
Java is another option however it is notably slower than C. Syntactically it is very similar and offers a nice object orientated environment for writing code. It is also considered by most to be a safer language than C and C++. It is widely used in enterprise.
Python while syntactically not like C is a high level Object Orientated Programming Language that is very popular and can import C modules which may be very useful down the track.
This is too broad a question and is best made Community wiki.
However, in my mind, the main distinguishing feature of C is it's compactness. The whole language can be described in a small book like K&R. One can remember all the syntactic details without much effort (since there are so few of them) and it doesn't try to protect it's users from themselves.
Languages like C++ are much more baroque. It's quite hard to remember all the rules and exceptions. I feel the same way about Perl and Ruby. There are lots of things to remember and lots of things to watch out for.
I feel the same sense of compactness with Python (although perhaps not as much as C). There's very little "special syntax" and all libraries and modules are operated upon in a similar fashion.
This (probably like most other comments on this question) is a personal evaluation and is by no means a final word.
Probably Java and C#... Java a little more so I think.
And it's not the language - it's all about the libraries. Try out Qt (http://qt.nokia.com/). It's for C++ and I know you said C but I'm just making a point that you'll find yourself writing just as little (and perhaps even less!) code than you'd write for applications in Java or C#. Plus they're native and cross-platform.
All about the libraries.
I've been learning C: it's a beautiful, well-thought-out language. However, it is so low-level that writing any sort of major project becomes tedious.
Some people would say that the second sentence proves that the assertion of the first sentence is false.
Another point is that this is pretty much unanswerable. What is a "high level" language? what are your criteria for "closeness"? Syntax, computational model, performance? And what kind of applications are you wanting to build with this hypothetical language?
And if you just want to confine yourself to languages that "look like" C, why? As someone who has lost count of the number of programming languages he has used, I can tell you that differences in programming language syntax are generally pretty unimportant. You can get used to pretty much any syntax, given time.
This comparison of basic instructions gives you a good idea of what languages are similar to each other.
I would say PHP is most like C except for the $variables, if you can distinguish php the language from php the platform. Java tries in some ways, but is too strongly object oriented to be similar to C.
Javascript has a reasonably C-like syntax, and it's a very popular language. Javascript has a lot of quirks, but it has one powerful similarity to C - it's simple. The complete Javascript specification is very short, and the language is very powerful and high-level. It would be great to clean it up from some of its ugly cruft, though.
I'll just point out that Pascal is semantically (though not so much syntactically) very similar to C, so there are options like Object Pascal, Modula 2, Ada and Oberon out there where you will be re-using most of the non-trivial part of what you already know, the trivial part being the spelling.
You're probably better off sticking with C# or Java in terms of job prospects, though.
EDIT
I'll also add that on the clutter issue, it is important to sort out which clutter is important. C has less "clutter" in it's language definition, true, but the relevant clutter is in source code. Consider the following...
// C
struct mystruct *myvar;
myvar = (struct mystruct *) malloc (sizeof (struct mystruct));
myvar->a = 1;
myvar->b = 2;
myvar->c = 3;
call_something (myvar);
free (myvar);
// C++
auto_ptr<mystruct> myvar (new myclass (1, 2, 3));
call_something (myvar);
The point is that the "clutter" in the language definition is there for a reason. With a little up-front work when writing libraries, a lot of work (and clutter) is avoided down the line. And even when you're writing a library, you benefit from the up-front work done by other library writers.
I'd vote C#. I don't know what you mean by "clutter," but from a usability standpoint, C# is nice because it avoids some of the tedious things of C++, like having to essentially "declare" each of your class's methods twice (prototyping it in the header file, then essentially duplicating the same thing in your class's implementation). Ditching header files was nice in other ways too, like doing away with dependency conflicts in big projects or avoiding circular references. In C#, the compiler takes care of all that (although you still have to set references to other files or assemblies).
I've been doing C# for 10 years and I still miss pointers, which believe it or not, in my opinion, actually made debugging easier!
If you're going to be programming often, it's good to know languages that are explicitly not like each other. It's especially useful to know high level scripting languages like python or ruby. If you can think like a programmer in C you should be fine learning either of these two.
Many big projects take advantage of the rapid prototyping of higher level languages like python or ruby, but also take advantage of low overhead (fast) compiled languages like C/C++.
If you think that C++ is cluttered, then you just don't know how to write effective C++, because nobody forces you to use any of the advanced tools available. You could write a C++ program entirely in C plus your favourite C++ feature (like the AWESOME standard library). That's the definition of uncluttered. A cluttered language would be Java/C#, where you HAVE to put every function in a class. That's clutter.
How about ActionScript 3? It's a lot like Java.
After five years of professional Java (and to a lesser extent, Python) programming and slowly feeling my computer science education slip away, I decided I wanted to broaden my horizons / general usefulness to the world and do something that feels more (to me) like I really have an influence over the machine. I chose to learn C and Unix programming since I feel like that is where many of the most interesting problems are.
My end goal is to be able to do this professionally, if for no other reason than the fact that I have to spend 40-50 hours per week on work that pays the bills, so it may as well also be the type of coding I want to get better at. Of course, you don't get hired to do things you haven't done before, so for now I am ramping up on my own.
To this end, I started with K&R, which was a great resource in part due to the exercises spread throughout each chapter. After that I moved on to Computer Systems: A Programmer's Perspective, followed by ten chapters of Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment. When I am done with this book, I will read Unix Network Programming.
What I'm missing in the Stevens books is the lack of programming problems; they mainly document functionality and provide examples, with a few end-of-chapter questions following. I feel that I would benefit much more from being challenged to use the knowledge in each chapter a la K&R. I could write some test program for each function, but this is a less desirable method as (1) I would probably be less motivated than if I were rising to some external challenge, and (2) I will naturally only think to use the function in the ways that have already occurred to me.
So, I'd like to get some recommendations on how to practice. Obviously, my first choice would be to find some resource that has Unix programming challenges. I have also considered finding and attempting to contribute to some open source C project, but this is a bit daunting as there would be some overhead in learning to use the software, then learning the codebase. The only open-source C project I can think of that I use regularly is Python, and I'm not sure how easy that would be to get started on.
That said, I'm open to all kinds of suggestions as there are likely things I haven't even thought of.
Reinvent a lot of the core Unix utilities. Most of these were (and still are) written in C, so they are a good way to start off learning. Depending on your skill, pick harder or easier utilities to copy.
Try writing your own malloc. You'll learn a lot about Unix and a lot of C programming as well.
Google for computer science operating system courses and do the projects there. Many schools have these projects on public websites so you could get everything you need. Here is a link to Purdue's site. Give the shell project a shot; it was difficult, but really educational.
Here are a few stackoverflow postings discussing C/Unix programming books. Their main claim to fame is extensive fan-out to other resources.
Practice some of the idioms (understand the ins and outs of pointers etc) and pick projects that help with that. The third item in the list has an answer (disclaimer, I wrote it) with a bunch of high-level C idioms where an idiomatic C program would differ from Java.
Learning XLib or Win32 GUI programming with C is probably less useful as almost anything is better than C for GUI programming and wrapping a core C engine with another language is generally much easier - unless you're really concerned with speed. As a starting point, concentrate on 'systems' programming applications, which is where you are most likely to get real mileage from C. Learn how the C interface of one of the scripting languages like Tcl or Python works.
Writing some bit-twiddly and pointer heavy code (e.g. picking apart network packets or interpreting a protocol), or server-side items using sockets will take you right into C's core competencies. If you've got some of the WRS books, try making pthreads work (IIRC UNP2 has a big section about pThreads). For a contrast, write something that uses non-blocking I/O. This stuff is C's home turf and you'll get a good working knowledge of C by doing this. Troll through the RFCs for some ideas of network protocols to implement.
What are good Linux/Unix books for an advancing user?
What are some good resources for learning C beyond K&R
Resources for learning C program design
What’s a good way to start learning about Data Structures & Algorithms?
Algorithms in C
Are you open to book suggestions? Although it is a bit dated (where "a bit" perhaps is a huge understatement), Maurice Bach's "The Design of the Unix Operating System" is a great book. It belongs next to K&R on your bookshelf.
You might try working your way through all the examples in the book Software Tools (Amazon). Much of it is pretty pedestrian (right-justify text, de-tabify, etc.), but it's a great introduction to the Unix philosophy and basic C programming.
This is pretty interesting. As we know that Unix is designed by using the C language, it may not difficult to learn. If you are using the Windows OS, you can use a "Windows services for Unix" application to practice your programs. If you are using Unix, then we can use editors like vi.
I would recommend one thing highly.
Try and re-write all usual Linux command lines tools like ls, mkdir, cd etc.
You'll gain a lot of knowlege about programming and Linux both at the same time.
Pick the commands from the easiest, say "time" and work all the way up to the more complicated ones.
The best way to consolidate your learnings it to practise. So just choose a kind of application that interest you and start developing it (for example, a network client/server simple application).
Try to test most of the Unix APIs (files, sockets, etc.) to see how they work. You could for example get an Unix programming book, follow its chapters and test on your application everything you read, by creating your own functions. On that way, you can start to develop your own function library to be used in further projects.
Write a webserver.
Make it multi-threaded.
Have it support a new scripting language you develop (a la PHP, etc.)
Allow uploads from authenticated users.
Write a plugin for your favorite tool (i.e. integrate with SVN to give a webview).
I came across this: Writing a compiler using Turbo Pascal
I am curious if there are any tutorials or references explaining how to go about creating a simple C compiler. I mean, it is enough if it gets me to the level of making it understand arithmetic operations. I became really curious after reading this article by Ken Thompson. The idea of writing something that understands itself seems exciting.
Why did I put up this question instead of asking Google? I tried Google and the Pascal one was the first link. The rest did no seem relevant and added to that... I am not a CS major (so I still need to learn what all those tools like yacc do) and I want to learn this by doing and am hoping people with more experience are always better at these things than Google. I want to read some article written in the same spirit as the one I listed above but that which highlights at least the bootstrapping phases of building a simple C compiler.
Also, I don't know the best way to learn. Do I start off building a C compiler in C or some other language? Do I write a C compiler or some other language? I feel questions like this are better answered once I have some direction to explore. Any suggestions?
Any suggestions?
A compiler consists of three pieces:
A parser
An abstract syntax tree (AST)
An assembly code generator
There are lots of nice parser generators that start with language grammars. Maybe ANTLR would be a good place for you to start. If you want to stick to C roots, try lex/yacc or bison.
There are grammars for C, but I think C in its entirety is complex. You'd do well to start off with a subset of the language and work your way up.
Once you have an AST, you use it to generate the machine code that you'll run.
It's doable, but not trivial.
I'd also check Amazon for books about writing compilers. The Dragon Book is the classic, but there are more modern ones available.
UPDATE: There have been similar questions on Stack overflow, like this one. Check out those resources as well.
I advise you this tutorial:
LLVM tutorial
It is a small example on how to implement a "small language" compiler. The source code is very small and is explained step by step.
There is also the C front end library for the LLVM (Low Level Virtual Machine which represent the internal structure of a program) library:
Clang
For what it's worth, the Tiny C Compiler is a pretty full-featured C compiler in a relatively small source package. You might benefit from studying that source, as it's probably significantly easier to understand than trying to comprehend all of GCC's source base, for instance.
This is my opinion (and conjecture) it will be hard to write a compiler without understanding data structures normally covered in undergraduate (post secondary) Computer Science classes. This doesn't mean you cannot, but you will need to know essential data structures such as linked lists, and trees.
Rather than writing a full or standards compliant C language compiler (at least in the start), I would suggest limiting yourself to a basic subset of the language, such as common operators, integer only support, and basic functions and pointers. One classic example of this was Ron Cain's Small-C, made popular by a series of articles written in Dr. Dobbs Journal in I believe the 1980s. They publish a CD with the James Hendrix's out-of-print book, A Small-C Compiler.
What I would suggest is following Crenshaw's tutorial, but write it for a C-like language compiler, and whatever CPU target (Crenshaw targets the Motorola 68000 CPU) you wish to target. In order to do this, you will need to know basic assembly of which ever target you want to run the compiled programs on. This could include a emulator for a 68000, or MIPS which are arguably nicer assembly instruction sets than the venerable CISC instruction set of the Intel x86 (16/32-bit).
There are many potential books that can be used as starting points for learning compiler / translator theory (and practice). Read the comp.compilers FAQ, and reviews at various online book sellers. Most introductory books are written as textbooks for sophomore to senior level undergraduate Computer Science classes, so they can be slow reading without a CS background. One older book that might be more introductory, but easier to read than "The Dragon Book" is Introduction to Compiler Construction by Thomas Parsons. It is older, so you should be able to find an used copy from your choice of online book sellers at a reasonable price.
So I'd say, try starting with Jack Crenshaw's Let's Build a Compiler tutorial, write your own, following his examples as a guide, and build the basics of a simple compiler. Once you have that working, you can better decide where you wish to take it from that point.
Added:
In regards to the bootstrapping process. Since there are existing C compilers freely available, you do not need to worry about bootstrapping. Write your compiler with separate, existing tools (GCC, Visual C++ Express, Mingw / djgpp, tcc), and you can worry about self-compiling your project at a much later stage. I was surprised by this part of the question until I realized you were brought to the idea of writing your own compiler by reading Ken Thomas' ACM Turing award speech, Reflections on Trusting Trust, which does go into the compiler bootstrapping process. It's a moderated advanced topic, and is also simply a lot of hassle as well. I find even bootstrapping the GCC C compiler under older Unix systems (Digital OSF/1 on the 64-bit Alpha) that included a C compiler a slow and time consuming, error prone process.
The other sort-of question was what a compiler tool like Yacc actually does. Yacc (Yet Another Compiler Compiler or Bison from GNU) is a tool designed to make writing a compiler (or translator) parser easier. Based on the formal grammar for your target language that you input to yacc, it generates a parser, which is one portion of a compiler's overall design. Next is Lex (or flex from GNU) which used to generate a lexical analyzer or scanner, which is often used in combination with the yacc generated parser to form the skeleton of the front-end of a compiler. These tools make writer a front end arguably easier than writing an lexical analyzer and parser yourself. Crenshaw's tutorial does not use these tools, and you don't need to either, many compiler writers don't always use them. Of course Crenshaw admits the tutorial's parser is quite basic.
Crenshaw's tutorial also skips generating an AST (abstract syntax tree), which simplifies but also limits the tutorial compiler. It lacks most if not all optimization, and is very tied to the specific programming language and the particular assembly language emitted by the "back-end" of the compiler. Normally the AST is a middle piece where some optimization can be performed, and serves to de-couple the compiler front-end and back-end in design. For a beginner without a Computer Science background, I'd suggest not worrying about not having an AST for your first compiler (or at least the first version of it). I think keeping it small and simple will help you finish writing a compiler, in its first version, and you can decide from there how you want to proceed then.
You might be interested in the book/course The Elements of Computing Systems:Building a Modern Computer from First Principles.
Note that this isn't about building a "pc" from stuff you bought off newegg. It begins with a description of Boolean logic fundamentals, and builds a virtual computer from the lowest levels of abstraction to progressively higher levels of abstraction. The course materials are all online, and the book itself is fairly inexpensive from Amazon.
In the course, in addition to "building the hardware", you'll also implement an assembler, virtual machine, compiler, and rudimentary OS, in a step-wise fashion. I think this would give you enough of a background to delve deeper into the subject area with some of the more commonly recommended resources listed in the other answers.
In The Unix Programming Environment, Kernighan and Pike walk through 5 iterations of making a calculator working from simple C based lexical analysis and immediate execution to yacc/lex parsing and code generation for an abstract machine. Because they write so wonderfully I can't suggest smoother introduction. It is certainly smaller than C, but that is likely to your advantage.
How do I [start writing] a simple C compiler?
There's nothing simple about compiling C. The best simple C compiler is lcc by Chris Fraser and David Hanson. They spent 10 years working on the design to make it as simple as they possibly could, while still generating reasonably good code. If you have access to a university library, you should be able to get their book.
Do I start off building a C compiler in C or some other language?
Some other language. One time I got to ask Hanson what lessons he and Fraser had learned by spending 10 years on the lcc project. The main thing Hanson said was
C is a lousy language to write a compiler in.
You're better off using Haskell or some dialect of ML. Both languages offer functions over algebraic data types, which is a perfect match to the problems faced by the compiler writer. If you still want to pursue C, you could start with George Necula's CIL, which is a big chunk of a C compiler written in ML.
I want to read some article written in the same spirit as the one I listed above but that which highlights at least the bootstrapping phases...
You won't find another article like Ken's. But Andrew Appel has written a nice article called Axiomatic Bootstrapping: A Guide for Compiler Hackers I couldn't find a free version but many people have access to the ACM Digital Library.
Any suggestions?
If you want to write a compiler,
Use Haskell or ML as your implementation language.
For your first compiler, pick a very simple language like Oberon or like P0 from Niklaus Wirth's book Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs. Wirth is famous for designing languages that are easy to compile.
You can write a C compiler for your second compiler.
A compiler is a complex subject matter that covers aspects of
Input processing involving Lexing, Parsing
Building a symbol store of every variable used such as an Abstract Syntax Tree (AST)
From the AST tree, transpose and build a machine code binary based on the syntax
This is by no means exhaustive as it is an abstract bird's eye view from the top of a mountain, it boils down to getting the syntax notation correct and ensuring that malformed inputs do not throw it off, in fact a good input processing should never fall on its knees no matter how malformed, terrible, abused cases of input that gets thrown at it. And, also in deciding and knowing what output is going to be, is it in machine code, which would imply you may have to get to know the processor instructions intimately...including memory addressing for variables and so on...
Here are some links for you to get started:
There was a Jack Crenshaw's port of his code for C....(I recall downloading it months ago...)
Here's a link to a similar question here on SO.
Also, here's another small compiler tutorial for Basic to x86 assembler compiler.
Tiny C Compiler
Hendrix's Small C Compiler found here.
It might be worthwhile to learn about functional programming, too. Functional languages are well-suited to writing a compiler both in and for. My school's intro compilers class contained an intro to functional languages and the assignments were all in OCaml.
Funny you should ask this today, since just a couple days ago I wrote a lambda calculus interpreter. Lambda calculus is the granddaddy of all functional languages. It's just 200 lines long (in C++, incl. error reporting, some pretty printing, some unicode) and has a two-phase structure, with an intermediate format that could be used to generate code.
Not only is starting small and building up the most practical approach to compilers, it also encourages good, modular, organizational practice.
A compiler is a very large project, although I suppose it wouldn't hurt to try.
I know of at least one C compiler written in Pascal, so it's not the most insane thing you could do. I personally would pick a more modern language in which to implement my C compiler project, both for the simplicity (it's easy to d/l packages for Python, Ruby, C, C++ or Java) and because it will look better on your resume.
In order to do a compiler as a beginner project, though, you will need to drink all of the Agile kool-aid.
Always have something running, even if it doesn't do much of anything. Add things to your compiler only in small steps. ("Frequent releases".) Pick a viciously tiny subset of the language and implement that first. (Support only i = 0; at first and expand things from there.)
If you want a mind-blowing experience that teaches you how to write compilers that compile themselves, you need to read this paper from 1964.
META II a syntax-oriented compiler writing language by Val Schorre.
In 10 pages, it tells you how to write compilers, how to write meta compilers, provides a virtual metacompiler instruction set, and a sample compiler built with the metacompiler.
I learned how to write compilers from this paper back in the late 60s, and used the ideas to construct C-like langauges for several minicomputers and microprocessors.
If the paper is too much by itself (it isn't!) there's an online tutorial which will walk you through the whole thing.
And if getting the paper from the original link is awkward because you are not an ACM member, you'll find that the tutorial contains all the details anyway. (IMHO, for the price, the paper itself is waaaaay worth it).
10 pages!
I would not recommend starting with C as the language to implement, nor with any of the compiler-generator or parser-generator tools. C is a very tricky language, and it's probably a better idea to just make up a language of your own. It can be a little C-like (e.g. use curly backets if you want to indicate the function body, use the same type names, so you don't have to remember what you called everything).
The tools for making compilers and parsers are great, but have the problem of really being a shorthand notation. If you don't know how to create a compiler in longhand, the shorthand will seem cryptic, needlessly restrictive etc. So write your own simple compiler first, then continue on from there. I also recommend you don't start generating actual machine code unless you eat and breathe assembler. Create your own bytecode interpreter with a VM.
As to what language you should use to create your first compiler: It doesn't really matter, as long as the language is fairly complete. You will be reading input text, building data structures from them and writing out binary data. So if a language makes those things easier in any way, that's a point in favor of it. Pick a language you know well, so you can focus on creating the compiler, not learning the language. I usually use an OO language, which makes the syntax tree easier to write, a functional language would probably also work if you are familiar with that.
I've blogged a lot about programming languages, so you might find some useful postings here: http://orangejuiceliberationfront.com/category/language-design/
In particular, http://orangejuiceliberationfront.com/how-to-write-a-compiler/ is a starter on the particulars of parsing common constructs and generating something useful from that, as well as http://orangejuiceliberationfront.com/generating-machine-code-at-runtime/ which talks about actually spitting out Intel instructions that do something.
Oh, regarding bootstrapping of a compiler: You probably won't be able to do that right from the start. There is a fair amount of work involved in creating a compiler. So not only would writing a bootstrapping compiler involve writing the compiler (in some other language), once you have it, you would then have to write a second version of the compiler using itself. That's twice the work, plus the debugging needed in the existing and the bootstrapped new compiler until it all works. That said, once you have a working compiler, it is a good way to test its completeness. OK, maybe not twice the work, but more work. I'd go for the easy successes first, then move on from there.
In any event, have fun!
Often one of the main reasons given for learning C is that it brings you closer to programming at a low level which gives you insights into how things really work in higher level languages.
I've been programming in various Assembly flavors for awhile and you can't get any lower level than what I have been coding in and I have no illusions about what reference types or pointers really are. It should be pointed out that I also am fairly prolific in Java and C#. I don't only know assembly.
Is it still worth the effort cracking open K&R and spending some valuable time learning the intricacies of the C language or would my time best be served learning something else?
Often one of the main reasons given for learning C is that it brings you closer to programming at a low level
Well, scratch that one off, look at the others and decide for yourself. If you want to:
remain close to low level but gain portability
be able to work with the huge codebase that C has already
just learn something new
then you might want to learn C.
Yes, absolutely. Writing a program of any significant size is very cumbersome in straight assembly, so most applications that are written down-to-the-metal (like hardware drivers) will mostly be in C, or at least C gluing together calls to assembly functions.
Also, because C has such a close relationship with the machine (that is to say, it is low level), learning C after assembly will be a good stepping stone for understanding what a compiler really does to turn high-level code into machine instructions.
Absolutely! Learning C will improve your assembler programming as well. As you learn C you will start to transfer the structured method to your assembler programming. I noticed that the more I learn of high level languages the better the organization and understandability of my assemble language programming.
It is very useful to be able to mix C and assembler. Being able to use both in a single project allows you to use the appropriate solution in any given situation within that project. For most tasks C is quicker to code, occasionally the opposite is true, assembly language is quicker. Sometimes the assembly language is better able to express a particular aspect of a solution (assembler's close mapping to the hardware can make programming I/O or device management clearer). For more abstract concepts C can be clearer (C++ can be better again).
The same goes for learning C++. I find myself using an object oriented approach to both my C and assembler programming.
In the end it's horses for courses. Use the appropriate language for the problem at hand.
You know assembly and you seem to know C#. It's never a bad thing to learn yet another language but I would only recommend learning C if you are going to need it in the near future. I think you would broaden your knowledge more by learning a dynamic language like Ruby or a functional like Common Lisp.
No one has mentioned....
Writing C is quicker to develop....
that C is a route to writing assembler quicker. When I wrote computer games, we wrote everything in C first then re-wrote the parts that took all the time, the old 80-20 rule. 80% of the time is in 20% of the code.
To do this we compiled the code we wished to re-write and used the dump to assembler file flag. Then we took the C generated assembler file and used that as the basis to write more optimised assembler code. This was far quicker than starting from scratch.
Today this approach is far harder as the compilers are far better and it is so much harder for humans to improve the compilers code - since processors got so complicated and fast code has become about keeping the caches and pipelines full.
Writing C is portable between processors....
When writing our games we were able to port 80% of our code between machines with a recompile. More if we used the C versions of the 20% code which we would reimplement in assembler for speed.
Tony
I think the most important reason why you should learn any programming language is so that you can put it to some use.
If you've learnt Assembly to do something, and you feel you can do something else better in C, then go ahead by all means.
But if you find that you've got nothing to do in C, then professionally there's no point in learning it.
If however you want to do it as a hobby or a personal endeavor. Then it's your time, do anything you want.
C is portable (if you write it carefully), that is a good reason for me.
Learning a new language is always a fun thing to do, especially if it's significantly different, paradigm-wise, from what you already know. So I'd say go for it.
I found it very interesting that C has still been one of the most sought-after languages on major search engines and book sites.
Maybe not...but it won't hurt to learn it :) I personally learned x86 assembly before C and my assembly knowledge made it easier for me to grasp C pointers.
It depends. If you want to work with C++, you surely should also learn C. If you want to code in Python or Perl you don't really need it, as you have an understanding for the internals from Assembler.
One thing: Do you worked in Assembler with pointers and the heap? Understanding pointers and memory-management is very important for every higher language. If you didn't get the idea of pointers and the heap right, you should give C a try.
I look at it pragmatically - I wouldn't bother unless you feel like you have jobs where performance is more important than programmer productivity. After 12 years of programming, I've never come across a job that should have been written in C, instead of a garbage collected language. But, your situation may vary.
If all you knew was Java, then I would say yeah, it would be great.
I think it depends - do you (or might you in the future) have to deal with a codebase that includes C? There's an awful lot of it out there, so I'm actually surprised that you haven't already had a need to do something with C (at least reading it) given the assembly, C# and Java experience you cite.
Also, given that you know the above set of languages and the concepts that go along with them, I'd guess that learning C would be a cakewalk for you.
YES it is c is like the core of all programming languages almost every language is build based on it and sense you know c# it wont take you much to learn c
if you have done a lot of assembly stuff then I guess you may someday if not already work with it I don't think there is a programming job that wants you to know only assembly, C is needed even most low level software like Operating systems use C and Windows uses C++ also so in my opinion you should not even think about it C its like a fundamental knowledge even most of the web developers know C
Amazing that in a world of new scripting languages every day there are still people that manage to only know assembler.
I myself, after writing perl or javascript for longer periods always find lower level languages like C or C++ kind of lacking, for instance, where in perl I write foreach(#array), in C/C++ I have to fiddle with for loops and indexes and/or iterators.
So, yes, I can only imagine how much you will get from the abstractions C will provide for you.
Additionally, widening your perspective is always a Good Thing.