I'm interested in making a language to run on the AVM2 and I'm looking for advice on where to start. I do realize that this is by no means a trivial task, but I would like to give it a try and at the very least learn more about implementing a language along the way.
I have messed around with ANTLR and have been reading up on syntax issues for language development. What I'm looking for is advice on a path to take or useful references/books.
For instance I would like to generate (script/manually) some very simple AVM2 bytecode and get that to run on the VM as a start.
Thanks
If you are not interested in Haxe, you will basically need to write your own compiler that compiles objects down to ABC (Actionscript Byte Code). The AVM2 Overview document available from Adobe on ABC and the AVM2 which should help you get started. It's a fairly thorough document but stay alert for a few typo's in the bytecode instructions.
You will also need to wrap the bytecode in a doABC tag as part of a SWF container. You can get more information from the SWF File Format documentation.
If you'd like a headstart on writing the data structures (optimised int formats, etc), feel free to checkout the code at asmock, a dynamic mocking project I've been working on. The SWF/ByteCode generation stuff is a bit messy but there are IDataOutput wrappers (SWF, ByteCode) that might come in handy.
Project Alchemy by Adobe can be a good reference
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/alchemy/
How did it go?
I'm also interested in doing a Java to AVM2 compiler...
Do you have any published code?
Take a look at Haxe: it is an open source language that can target different platforms, including the AVM. You can dig into the SWF compiler source code to get some inspiration.
Related
I am very new to Alchemy and not an expert in using swc to store code(Although I am well aware that it worked for me so far). I want to make sure I understand if Alchemy is the right tool for me in this situation.
I want to make a simple script in Alchemy to help make certain 'heavy lifting' in the code lighter and less time consuming and ooze out more performance. The trick is that my colleagues will likely be daunted by the installation process(even though there is a guide). So my question is, if I do take the time to work with Alchemey, can I make my code available to other people that do not use it, for our project?
Hope that makes sense, my instincts (gut feeling) says yes. I simply want to make sure.
Yes, this is exactly what SWCs are for, you can compile your C++ code with FlasCC and expose a simple AS3 API that other people can use by linking your SWC into their project. Download the FlasCC beta and check out the tutorials it comes with that explain this in more detail: http://gaming.adobe.com/technologies/flascc/
Shortly, the answer is yes.
The point is you can't recompile the SWC into an SWF if you don't use alchemy. What you can do, is download at runtime (using Loader.load with ApplicationDomain.currentDomain) the SWF contained into the SWF (SWC is a simple zip, extract it).
Then, you can freely use the class that's inside, using ApplicationDomain.getDefinition("OneOfYourClass).
More about application domain
Since it's at runtime, you won't have to compile Alchemy, thus it should work fine for anyone.
I'm looking to play around with the Rubinius VM to create a langauage, but just reading the documentation, I'm still quite lost on how to get started. Even looking at the projects, I still can't seem to figure out where the parsing and using the vm comes into place. Does anyone have any resources for this?
Hey I'm a contributor to the Fancy language that runs on rubinius. If you're interested in parsing take a look at boot/rbx-compiler there you'll find a Parser (implemented with KPEG) that basically constructs a tree of AST nodes, each of those nodes has a bytecode method that produces the rubinius vm instructions for everything to work. Fancy share a lot of semantics with ruby, so I guess starting with it would be easy if you're already familiar with ruby. You'll just need to checkout the examples/ dir to geet a feeling on the language and then the kpeg parser, ast nodes, loader, as you progress exploring the compiler. These days Fancy is bootstrapped (that means that the compiler has been written in fancy itself - at lib/compiler) but rbx-compiler is the first step in that process.
Hope exploring Fancy's source code can be of help to you.
In case you hadn't seen it, check out Evan's keynote from 2011 LA Ruby Conf. He shows how to build a simple language, which might be helpful.
There are several packages out there that help in automating the task of writing bindings between C\C++ and other languages.
In my case, I'd like to bind Python, some options for such packages are: SWIG, Boost.Python and Robin.
It seems that the straight forward process is to use these packages to create C\C++ linkable libraries (with mostly static functions) and have the higher language be extended using them.
However, my situation is that I already have a developed working system in C++ therefore plan to embed Python into it so that future development will be in Python.
It's not clear to me how, and if at all possible, to use these packages in helping to extend embedded Python in such a way that the Python code would be able to interact with the various Singleton instances already running in the system, and instantiate C++ classes and interact with them.
What I'm looking for is an insight regarding the design best fitted for this situation.
Boost.python lets you do a lot of those things right out of the box, especially if you use smart pointers. You can even inherit from C++ classes in Python, then pass instances of those back to your C++ code and have everything still work. My favorite resource on how to do various stuff is this (especially check out the "How To" section): http://wiki.python.org/moin/boost.python/ .
Boost.python is especially good if you're using smart pointers or intrusive pointers, as those translate transparently into PyObject reference counting. Also, it's very good at making factory functions look like Python constructors, which makes for very clean Python APIs.
If you're not using smart pointers, it's still possible to do all the things you want, but you have to mess with various return and lifetime policies, which can give you a headache.
To make it short: There is the modern alternative pybind11.
Long version: I also had to embed python. The C++ Python interface is small so I decided to use the C Api. That turned out to be a nightmare. Exposing classes lets you write tons of complicated boilerplate code. Boost::Python greatly avoids this by using readable interface definitions. However I found that boost lacks a sophisticated documentation and dor some things you still have to call the Python api. Further their build system seems to give people troubles. I cant tell since i use packages provided by the system. Finally I tried the boost python fork pybind11 and have to say that it is really convenient and fixes some shortcomings of boost like the necessity of the use of the Python Api, ability to use lambdas, the lack of an easy comprehensible documentation and automatic exception translation. Further it is header only and does not pull the huge boost dependency on deployment, so I can definitively recommend it.
I'm creating a game in XNA and was thinking of creating my own scripting language (extremely simple mind you). I know there's better ways to go about this (and that I'm reinventing the wheel), but I want the learning experience more than to be productive and fast.
When confronted with code at run time, from what I understand, the usual approach is to parse into a machine code or byte code or something else that is actually executable and then execute that, right? But, for instance, when Chrome first came out they said their JavaScript engine was fast because it compiles the JavaScript into machine code. This implies other engines weren't compiling into machine code.
I'd prefer not compiling to a lower language, so are there any known modern techniques for parsing and executing code without compiling to low level? Perhaps something like parsing the code into some sort of tree, branching through the tree, and comparing each symbol and calling some function that handles that symbol? (Wild guessing and stabbing in the dark)
I personally wouldn't roll your own parser ( turning the input into tokens ) or lexer ( checking the input tokens for your language grammar ). Take a look at ANTLR for parsing/lexing - it's a great framework and has full source code if you want to dig into the guts of it.
For executing code that you've parsed, I'd look at running a simple virtual machine or even better look at llvm which is an open-source(ish) attempt to standardise the virtual machine byte code format and provide nice features like JITing ( turning your script compiled byte code into assembly ).
I wouldn't discourage you from the more advanced options that you machine such as native machine code execution but bear in mind that this is a very specialist area and gets real complex, real fast!
Earlz pointed out that my reply might seem to imply 'don't bother doing this yourself. Re-reading my post it does sound a bit that way. The reason I mentioned ANTLR and LLVM is they both have heaps of source code and tutorials so I feel this is a good reference source. Take it as a base and play
You can try this framework for building languages (it works well with XNA):
http://www.meta-alternative.net/mbase.html
There are some tutorials:
http://www.meta-alternative.net/calc.pdf
http://www.meta-alternative.net/pfront.pdf
Python is great as a scripting language. I would recommend you make a C# binding for its C API and use that. Embedding Python is easy. Your application can define functions, types/classes and variables inside modules which the Python interpreter can access. The application can also call functions in Python scripts and get a result back. These two features combined gives you a two-way communication scheme.
Basically, you get the Python syntax and semantics for free. What you would need to implement is the API your application exposes to Python. An example could be access to game logic functions and render functions. Python scripts would then define functions which calls these, and the host application would invoke the Python functions (with parameters) to get work done.
EDIT: Seems like IronPython can save you even more work. It's a C# implementation of CPython, and has its own embedding API: http://www.ironpython.net/
Inside a Java project I use Google Protocol Buffers (GPB) for serializing my objects. I can use the same .proto files in auxiliary Python code, which is great. Now I'm adding a Flex client to the whole thing and I'd like to use the same .proto files once more.
It seems there's a couple of projects out there which compile .proto files to Actionscript. From a few glances at the projects' homepages, it seems to me that protobuf-actionscript3 is actually the most advanced and most "alive" of these projects.
Has anybody had practical experience with GPB to AS3 compilers and which one(s) can you recommend (or recommend against)?
If you're sure you want to use GPB, then protobuf-actionscript3 is your best option. It builds on the semi-successful protocol-buffers-actionscript project: http://code.google.com/p/protocol-buffers-actionscript/
If you're open to looking at other formats, there's always Adobe's own AMF3. It seems to have a good amount of community support behind it.
The only choice now is https://code.google.com/p/protoc-gen-as3/. All the other Protobuf/AS3 projects are out-of-date, and lack of features.