Template metaprogramming = interpretation

[Dave]

Would people agree with the statement that to a large degree, using template
metaprogramming techniques turns a C++ compiler into a C++ interpreter (but
just for the metaprogrammed portions of the code)? It's not a perfect
analogy, but it seems to be a reasonable statement...

[Victor Bazarov]

"Dave" <be***********@yahoo.com> wrote...

Would people agree with the statement that to a large degree, using template metaprogramming techniques turns a C++ compiler into a C++ interpreter (but just for the metaprogrammed portions of the code)? It's not a perfect
analogy, but it seems to be a reasonable statement...

Every compiler is an interpreter if it can handle things like

int a = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4;

by creating a definition of 'a' initialised to 10 instead of
a special piece of code that performs three additions with the
immediate operands.

Victor

[Ron Natalie]

"Dave" <be***********@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:vu************@news.supernews.com...

Would people agree with the statement that to a large degree, using template
metaprogramming techniques turns a C++ compiler into a C++ interpreter (but
just for the metaprogrammed portions of the code)? It's not a perfect
analogy, but it seems to be a reasonable statement...

I wouldn't agree with the statement. It's more of a supercompiler as it
can precompute code at compile time as opposed to translating language
at run time.

[Ron Natalie]

"Victor Bazarov" <v.********@comAcast.net> wrote in message news:u8%Fb.119086$8y1.371001@attbi_s52...

Every compiler is an interpreter if it can handle things like

int a = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4;

by creating a definition of 'a' initialised to 10 instead of
a special piece of code that performs three additions with the
immediate operands.

Every compiler has to be able to handle that. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4
is a constant expression.

The fact that a compiler can precompute things at compile
time makes it LESS of an interpreter than more of one in my
opinion.

[Jeff Schwab]

Ron Natalie wrote:

"Dave" <be***********@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:vu************@news.supernews.com...

Would people agree with the statement that to a large degree, using template
metaprogramming techniques turns a C++ compiler into a C++ interpreter (but
just for the metaprogrammed portions of the code)? It's not a perfect
analogy, but it seems to be a reasonable statement...

I do see what you mean. You're getting the compiler to execute a
program for you, in much the same way that a Unix shell executes your
commands. However, the compiler is acting as a very special-purpose
interpreter, useful only for generating "traditional" code. The reason
is that run-time libraries, system interfaces, etc. are not available.

Ron Natalie wrote:
I wouldn't agree with the statement. It's more of a supercompiler as it
can precompute code at compile time as opposed to translating language
at run time.

I have to agree with Ron. The compiler is acting more like a CASE tool
than a traditional compiler. Speaking of which, whatever happened to
4GL's? Does C++ metaprogramming count?

-Jeff

[Dave]

"Jeff Schwab" <je******@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:G7********************@comcast.com...

Ron Natalie wrote:

"Dave" <be***********@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:vu************@news.supernews.com...

Would people agree with the statement that to a large degree, using templatemetaprogramming techniques turns a C++ compiler into a C++ interpreter (butjust for the metaprogrammed portions of the code)? It's not a perfect
analogy, but it seems to be a reasonable statement...
I do see what you mean. You're getting the compiler to execute a
program for you, in much the same way that a Unix shell executes your
commands. However, the compiler is acting as a very special-purpose
interpreter, useful only for generating "traditional" code. The reason
is that run-time libraries, system interfaces, etc. are not available.

Yeah, this characterization of template metaprogramming recently occurred to
me as I was trying my hand at a couple of miscellaneous problems just to see
if I could do it. I successfully implemented the compile-time calculation
of order statistics via template metaprogramming and it was at that point
the thought occurred to me that there is something sort of akin to
interpretation going on. Although, your point about the lack of
availability of any run-time libraries, etc... is well-taken!
Ron Natalie wrote:

I wouldn't agree with the statement. It's more of a supercompiler as

it can precompute code at compile time as opposed to translating language
at run time.

I have to agree with Ron. The compiler is acting more like a CASE tool
than a traditional compiler. Speaking of which, whatever happened to
4GL's? Does C++ metaprogramming count?

-Jeff

[Gianni Mariani]

Dave wrote:

"Jeff Schwab" <je******@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:G7********************@comcast.com...

Ron Natalie wrote:

"Dave" <be***********@yahoo.com> wrote in message

just for the metaprogrammed portions of the code)? It's not a perfect
analogy, but it seems to be a reasonable statement...

I do see what you mean. You're getting the compiler to execute a
program for you, in much the same way that a Unix shell executes your
commands. However, the compiler is acting as a very special-purpose
interpreter, useful only for generating "traditional" code. The reason
is that run-time libraries, system interfaces, etc. are not available.

Yeah, this characterization of template metaprogramming recently occurred to
me as I was trying my hand at a couple of miscellaneous problems just to see
if I could do it. I successfully implemented the compile-time calculation
of order statistics via template metaprogramming and it was at that point
the thought occurred to me that there is something sort of akin to
interpretation going on. Although, your point about the lack of
availability of any run-time libraries, etc... is well-taken!

So the question is - do you want metaprogramming in the regular language?

I've written a number of fancy templates and I find having to think in
this recursve "COME FROM" language a little bit of a challenge.

Then if you start to argue about this too much you'll have someone
remind you that lisp does all this in one language.

[Dave]

"Gianni Mariani" <gi*******@mariani.ws> wrote in message
news:bs********@dispatch.concentric.net...

Dave wrote:

"Jeff Schwab" <je******@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:G7********************@comcast.com...

Ron Natalie wrote:

"Dave" <be***********@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>just for the metaprogrammed portions of the code)? It's not a perfect
>analogy, but it seems to be a reasonable statement...

I do see what you mean. You're getting the compiler to execute a
program for you, in much the same way that a Unix shell executes your
commands. However, the compiler is acting as a very special-purpose
interpreter, useful only for generating "traditional" code. The reason
is that run-time libraries, system interfaces, etc. are not available.

Yeah, this characterization of template metaprogramming recently

occurred to me as I was trying my hand at a couple of miscellaneous problems just to see if I could do it. I successfully implemented the compile-time calculation of order statistics via template metaprogramming and it was at that point the thought occurred to me that there is something sort of akin to
interpretation going on. Although, your point about the lack of
availability of any run-time libraries, etc... is well-taken!

So the question is - do you want metaprogramming in the regular language?

I've written a number of fancy templates and I find having to think in
this recursve "COME FROM" language a little bit of a challenge.

Then if you start to argue about this too much you'll have someone
remind you that lisp does all this in one language.

Yep, I agree with your sentiments! Not to mention that syntactically it's
awful. But that's not the fault of the language since templates weren't
envisioned to be used in this manner. Nonetheless, I find the concept of
compile-time programming (and especially that it is Turing-complete)
fascinating...

[Jeff Schwab]

Gianni Mariani wrote:

So the question is - do you want metaprogramming in the regular language?

I've written a number of fancy templates and I find having to think in
this recursve "COME FROM" language a little bit of a challenge.

Then if you start to argue about this too much you'll have someone
remind you that lisp does all this in one language.

So do a number of other interpreted languages, including Perl and Tcl.
I think that's why template-based metaprogramming reminded the OP of an
interpreted language.

[Mike Hewson]

"Dave" <be***********@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vu************@news.supernews.com...

Nonetheless, I find the concept of compile-time programming
(and especially that it is Turing-complete) fascinating...

Well I thought I followed alot of this thread, but what's 'Turing-complete'
?
Is there an incomplete?

--

Cheers
--
Hewson::Mike
"This letter is longer than usual because I lack the time to make it
shorter" - Blaise Pascal

[Rob Williscroft]

Mike Hewson wrote in news:bs************@ID-135553.news.uni-berlin.de:

"Dave" <be***********@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vu************@news.supernews.com...

Nonetheless, I find the concept of compile-time programming
(and especially that it is Turing-complete) fascinating...
Well I thought I followed alot of this thread, but what's
'Turing-complete' ?

I put your query to google, I felt luky and got:

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing-complete
Is there an incomplete?

There is no non-sarcastic answer to this question.

Rob.
--
http://www.victim-prime.dsl.pipex.com/

[Dave]

"Mike Hewson" <he******@austarnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:bs************@ID-135553.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Dave" <be***********@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vu************@news.supernews.com...

Nonetheless, I find the concept of compile-time programming
(and especially that it is Turing-complete) fascinating...
Well I thought I followed alot of this thread, but what's

'Turing-complete' ?
Is there an incomplete?

--

Cheers
--
Hewson::Mike
"This letter is longer than usual because I lack the time to make it
shorter" - Blaise Pascal

When something is "Turing-Complete", that means it is capable of computing
anything that is computable. And yep, there are things that are not
computable, ever, no matter how much processing power you have. Have you
ever heard of the halting problem? That is the classic example of something
that simply cannot be computed, period.

An example of something that is not Turing-Complete is a simple finite state
machine.

The term comes from Turing Machines, which are a well-known and simple
theoretical machine in Computer Science. Their elegance comes from the fact
that they can indeed compute anything that is computable, yet are very
simple machines.

In terms of this thread, template metaprogramming being Turing-Complete
means that you can compute anything that is comoutable using only template
metaprogramming techniques. There is nothing the full C++ language can do
computationally that can't be done just with template metaprogramming!
Although, programs that are purely metaprograms would be horrendous to read
and understand if they did anything non-trivial! Template metaprogramming
tends to get very ugly from a syntactic point of view...

Of course, as another poster pointed out, there is no I/O system built up
around template metaprogramming, so that makes it largely useless as a
general-purpose programming language (even if one were willing to put up
with the syntax), but that is a separate issue - that doesn't change the
fact that, computationally, template metaprogramming is capable of handling
any computable problem.

Another practical problem with template metaprogramming is that any
non-trivial metaprogram would likely involve very deep recursive template
instantiation, which would blow an internal limit in most compilers. But
again, this does not change the fact that, from a theoretical point of view,
template metaprogramming can compue anything that is computable (have I used
that phrase enough???!!! :) )...

Hope that clears it up!

Dave

[Mike Hewson]

"Dave" <be***********@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vu************@news.supernews.com...

When something is "Turing-Complete", that means it is capable of computing
anything that is computable. And yep, there are things that are not
computable, ever, no matter how much processing power you have. Have you
ever heard of the halting problem? That is the classic example of something that simply cannot be computed, period.

An example of something that is not Turing-Complete is a simple finite state machine.

The term comes from Turing Machines, which are a well-known and simple
theoretical machine in Computer Science. Their elegance comes from the fact that they can indeed compute anything that is computable, yet are very
simple machines.

In terms of this thread, template metaprogramming being Turing-Complete
means that you can compute anything that is comoutable using only template
metaprogramming techniques. There is nothing the full C++ language can do
computationally that can't be done just with template metaprogramming!
Although, programs that are purely metaprograms would be horrendous to read and understand if they did anything non-trivial! Template metaprogramming
tends to get very ugly from a syntactic point of view...

Of course, as another poster pointed out, there is no I/O system built up
around template metaprogramming, so that makes it largely useless as a
general-purpose programming language (even if one were willing to put up
with the syntax), but that is a separate issue - that doesn't change the
fact that, computationally, template metaprogramming is capable of handling any computable problem.

Another practical problem with template metaprogramming is that any
non-trivial metaprogram would likely involve very deep recursive template
instantiation, which would blow an internal limit in most compilers. But
again, this does not change the fact that, from a theoretical point of view, template metaprogramming can compue anything that is computable (have I used that phrase enough???!!! :) )...

Hope that clears it up!

Dave

Outstanding, thank you!
Your explanation 'compute', 'compues', 'comouts' and probably 'comeaus' too.
:-)
I'll have to go off and read "The Emperor's New Mind" again. :-)

--

Cheers
--
Hewson::Mike
"This letter is longer than usual because I lack the time to make it
shorter" - Blaise Pascal