Vaibhs11 wrote:

include <stdio.h>
int main(){printf("bump");return 0;}

pkhead wrote:

i wonder if it'd be possible to make a C compiler in scratch?
it'd use an array for the memory
and it'd compile to like… idk what's in machine code instructions to do stuff?

replace
9
10
goto
20

i mean C itself doesn't sound too complex

Vaibhs11 wrote:

pkhead wrote:

i wonder if it'd be possible to make a C compiler in scratch?
it'd use an array for the memory
and it'd compile to like… idk what's in machine code instructions to do stuff?

replace
9
10
goto
20

i mean C itself doesn't sound too complex

very hard.
Especially the multi-dimensional lists.

int main() {
return 2;
}

keyword
int
identifier
main
symbol
(
symbol
)
symbol
{
keyword
return
integer
2
symbol
;
symbol
}

1. constant
   
2. 2
   
3. return command
   
4. 1
   
5. statement list
   
6. 1
   
7. 3
   
8. func
   
9. int
   
10. main
    
11. 5
    

pkhead wrote:

i've started working on the c compiler
and so far it parsed the following program into tokens:

int main() {
return 2;
}

so it spits out this

keyword
int
identifier
main
symbol
(
symbol
)
symbol
{
keyword
return
integer
2
symbol
;
symbol
}

now i just gotta program it some more so it spits out something similar to this:

1. constant
   
2. 2
   
3. return command
   
4. 1
   
5. statement list
   
6. 1
   
7. 3
   
8. func
   
9. int
   
10. main
    
11. 5
    

(i didn't add function parameters yet)
then after that i need to program it so more to spit out something similar to assembly
then program it so the program executes the assembly

constant
integer
2

Vaibhs11 wrote:

pkhead wrote:

i've started working on the c compiler
and so far it parsed the following program into tokens:

int main() {
return 2;
}

so it spits out this

keyword
int
identifier
main
symbol
(
symbol
)
symbol
{
keyword
return
integer
2
symbol
;
symbol
}

now i just gotta program it some more so it spits out something similar to this:

1. constant
   
2. 2
   
3. return command
   
4. 1
   
5. statement list
   
6. 1
   
7. 3
   
8. func
   
9. int
   
10. main
    
11. 5
    

(i didn't add function parameters yet)
then after that i need to program it so more to spit out something similar to assembly
then program it so the program executes the assembly

( - s y m b o l
why constant? Integer is better or even better,

constant
integer
2

gosh i wish scratch was a collaborative platform

return 2;

pufflegamerz wrote:

Here's a C compiler I started working on a while ago: https://github.com/CrypticOS/crc
I never got around to finishing it though.

Vaibhs11 wrote:

pufflegamerz wrote:

Here's a C compiler I started working on a while ago: https://github.com/CrypticOS/crc
I never got around to finishing it though.

is that a tiny c compiler?

pkhead wrote:

actually now that i think about it, why would anyone want to program in C instead of C++ for practical purposes nowadays?

pkhead wrote:

do you have any c programs vaibhs?
(what does that name even mean)

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
int gridlinecheck(const char agrid[9]) {
  const char samp[2] = "XO";
  if (agrid[0]==agrid[3]&&agrid[3]==agrid[6]) {
    if (agrid[0]==samp[0]) {
      return 1;
    } else if (agrid[0]==samp[1]) {
      return 2;
    }
  } else if (agrid[1]==agrid[4]&&agrid[4]==agrid[7]) {
    if (agrid[1]==samp[0]) {
      return 1;
    } else if (agrid[1]==samp[1]) {
      return 2;
    }
  } else if (agrid[2]==agrid[5]&&agrid[5]==agrid[8]) {
    if (agrid[2]==samp[0]) {
      return 1;
    } else if (agrid[2]==samp[1]) {
      return 2;
    }
  } else if (agrid[0]==agrid[1]&&agrid[1]==agrid[2]) {
    if (agrid[0]==samp[0]) {
      return 1;
    } else if (agrid[0]==samp[1]) {
      return 2;
    }
  } else if (agrid[3]==agrid[4]&&agrid[4]==agrid[5]) {
    if (agrid[3]==samp[0]) {
      return 1;
    } else if (agrid[3]==samp[1]) {
      return 2;
    }
  } else if (agrid[6]==agrid[7]&&agrid[7]==agrid[8]) {
    if (agrid[6]==samp[0]) {
      return 1;
    } else if (agrid[6]==samp[1]) {
      return 2;
    }
  } else if (agrid[0]==agrid[4]&&agrid[4]==agrid[8]) {
    if (agrid[0]==samp[0]) {
      return 1;
    } else if (agrid[0]==samp[1]) {
      return 2;
    }
  } else if (agrid[2]==agrid[4]&&agrid[4]==agrid[6]) {
    if (agrid[2]==samp[0]) {
      return 1;
    } else if (agrid[2]==samp[1]) {
      return 2;
    }
  } else {
    return 0;
  }
}
int main() {
  char grid[9] = "123456789", *corx = "X", *x = "X";
  int player = 1, tile, result, numerified;
  for (int m=0;m<10;) {
    result = gridlinecheck(grid);
    system("clear");
    for(int i=0;i<9;i++) {
      printf("[%c]", grid[i]);
      if(i==2||i==5||i==8){
        printf("\n");
      }
    }
    if (m!=9&&result==0) {
      printf("player %d: tile index to place %c (1-9): ",  player, *corx);
      scanf("%d", &tile);
      numerified = grid[tile - 1] - '0';
      if(numerified==tile) {
        grid[tile - 1] = *corx;
        if(*corx==*x) {
          corx = "O";
          player = 2;
        } else {
          corx = "X";
          player = 1;
        }
        m++;
      } else {
        printf("invalid move!\n");
        sleep(1);
      }
    } else if (m < 10&&result > 0) {
      printf("player %d wins!\n", result);
      exit(0);
    } else if (m==9&&result==0) {
       printf("draw!\n");
       m++;
    }
  }
  return 0;
}

Vaibhs11 wrote:

pkhead wrote:

actually now that i think about it, why would anyone want to program in C instead of C++ for practical purposes nowadays?

c is easier.

#include <vector>

#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
int main() {
  std::vector<std::string> vectorThing; // make a std::vector on the stack with template type std::string
  vectorThing.push_back("Hello"); // add string "Hello" to the end
  vectorThing.push_back("World!"); // add string "World" to the end
  std::cout << vectorThing[0] + vectorThing[1] << '\n'; // you can concatenate two strings together using the overloaded plus operator
  return 0;
}

#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
void references(vector<string> &someVec) {
  someVec.push_back("foo");
  someVec.push_back("bar");
}
void pointers(vector<string> *someVec) {
  (*someVec).push_back("foo");
  (*someVec).push_back("bar");
}
void pointerClasses(vector<string> *someVec) {
  someVec->push_back("foo");
  someVec->push_back("bar");
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
  vector<string> thingy;
  string arg(argv[1]);
  // std::string also overloaded the == operator to comparing strings
  if (arg == "references") {
    references(thingy);
  } else if (arg == "pointers") {
    pointers(&thingy);
  } else if (arg == "pointerClasses") {
    pointerClasses(&thingy);
  }
  cout << thingy[0] << '\n' << thingy[1] << '\n';
}

stackoverflow wrote:

Non-OO features that C++ has that C does not:

1. Templates
   
2. Function overloading
   
3. References
   
4. Namespaces
   
5. You can use structs and enums without writing struct or enum before every declaration or using typedefs
   
6. Even if you don't define your own classes, using C++'s string and container classes is still often more convenient and safe to work with than c-style strings and arrays.
   
7. Type safety (even though some would call it weak)
   
8. Exceptions
   
9. Variable declarations in conditionals, C99 only has it in for
   

pkhead wrote:

Vaibhs11 wrote:

pkhead wrote:

actually now that i think about it, why would anyone want to program in C instead of C++ for practical purposes nowadays?

c is easier.

well c++ has useful standard libraries, like vector. you could just download a dynamic array library for C from online (or write it yourself which would take longer), but in c++ you just put

#include <vector>

at the top and now you have dynamic arrays

and c++ has a library for a string class, while in C you can only handle strings as arrays of characters (or maybe there's like a library online)

#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
int main() {
  std::vector<std::string> vectorThing; // make a std::vector on the stack with template type std::string
  vectorThing.push_back("Hello"); // add string "Hello" to the end
  vectorThing.push_back("World!"); // add string "World" to the end
  std::cout << vectorThing[0] + vectorThing[1] << '\n'; // you can concatenate two strings together using the overloaded plus operator
  return 0;
}

and c++ has stuff to make your code more organized like namespaces or whatever (std a standard namespace). and references are easier to understand than pointers.
(and if you don't want to keep putting std::, then put “using namespace std;” on the top)

#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
void references(vector<string> &someVec) {
  someVec.push_back("foo");
  someVec.push_back("bar");
}
void pointers(vector<string> *someVec) {
  (*someVec).push_back("foo");
  (*someVec).push_back("bar");
}
void pointerClasses(vector<string> *someVec) {
  someVec->push_back("foo");
  someVec->push_back("bar");
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
  vector<string> thingy;
  string arg(argv[1]);
  // std::string also overloaded the == operator to comparing strings
  if (arg == "references") {
    references(thingy);
  } else if (arg == "pointers") {
    pointers(&thingy);
  } else if (arg == "pointerClasses") {
    pointerClasses(&thingy);
  }
  cout << thingy[0] << '\n' << thingy[1] << '\n';
}

these do exactly the same thing, but you don't need to put * or replace . with -> in the non-references one

c++ also has oop. i also i found a list online of features unique to c++ other than oop

stackoverflow wrote:

Non-OO features that C++ has that C does not:

1. Templates
   
2. Function overloading
   
3. References
   
4. Namespaces
   
5. You can use structs and enums without writing struct or enum before every declaration or using typedefs
   
6. Even if you don't define your own classes, using C++'s string and container classes is still often more convenient and safe to work with than c-style strings and arrays.
   
7. Type safety (even though some would call it weak)
   
8. Exceptions
   
9. Variable declarations in conditionals, C99 only has it in for
   

pkhead wrote:

(also after several years, i have finally figured out what the “Clean” tool on the forums do)