What is the recommended way to optimally minimize the size of ceylon javascript code?
I passed the language module through a minifier once (can't remember which one, some online service) and some tests failed after that. But this was before splitting the model from the code, and IIRC the errors were related to the model being minified; so maybe it can work for you if you only minify the code, but leave the model alone.
Related
I have fairly significant application written with Dart and Polymer which uses reflection in a factory method and runs fairly well in Dartium. The factory generates subclass instances using the subclass name passed to it as a parameter.
I'm fine with never generating Javascript and forcing my users, if any, to use Dartium. I'm also fine with modifying any #MirrorsUsed annotations when the list of instantiable subclasses changes. The page at http://dovdev.com/smoke-and-mirrors/ seems to imply that performance and/or codesize can be greatly improved, even in Dartium, by the use of Smoke.
How much does Dartium, or the Dart analyzer, do when running a Dart app? Will Smoke, or even just #MirrorsUsed annotations, do anything for an app in Dartium?
This sounds like you want to use Dartium in production which is definitely a bad idea.
Currently dev_compiler, a fast incremental Dart-2-JS compiler is work in progress to allow to use Chrome as development browser and to make Dartium redundant and discontinue it eventually.
In Dartium #MirrorsUsed() and Smoke don't matter.
If you are using an in-house application where you even consider using Dartium for production, perhaps the code-size effect of using mirrors might not even matter too much.
I'm looking for a best way to integrate GNAT compiler with our custom code analysis/modification tools. We are using custom tools to perform different code metrics (like execution time, test coverage and etc) and even do some code obfuscation. So for example for measuring code execution time I need to insert 2 procedure calls into each function/procedure (the first one where the function starts, and the other one for each function exit). The code for these 2 procedures are implemented in a separate translation unit. What is the best way to do these code instrumentations (insert/modify code) with GNAT compiler in terms of simplicity and performance? I can think of these several ways:
Does GNAT compiler support code generation plugins of any kind? Seem's that it doesn't, but maybe I missed something while googling about it. Maybe there is a way to do it using some metaprogramming tricks (like in some modern programming languages like Nimrod and D), but I couldn't find if Ada even supports metaprogramming at all.
Looks like the ASIS library can help me out, but it is made for creating separate tools. Is it possible to integrate ASIS-based tool with GNAT? So for example to write a tool that would be loaded by GNAT during compilation, and would modify nodes in the AST before it (the AST) is about to be transformed into GIMPLE. Using the ASIS-based tool separately (for example by preprocessing each source file before passing it to compiler) may reduce compilation time, as source code will need to be parsed twice (by the tool and by the compiler) and be saved/loaded to/from some temporary location on disk.
Is it possible to get GIMPLE from GNAT compiler, modify and pass it to GCC? I couldn't find if there is a working GIMPLE front-end inside GCC, but it seems that GIMPLE is used internally only. I can dump it with GCC compiler, but I can't recompile modified GIMPLE afterwards (seems that there is no GIMPLE front-end for GCC).
I search for a programming language for which a compiler exists and that supports self modifying code. I’ve heared that Lisp supports these features, but I was wondering if there is a more C/C++/D-Like language with these features.
To clarify what I mean:
I want to be able to have in some way access to the programms code at runtime and apply any kind of changes to it, that is, removing commands, adding commands, changing them.
As if i had the AstTree of my programm. Of course i can’t have that tree in a compiled language, so it must be done different. The compile would need to translate the self-modifying commands into their binary equivalent modifications so they would work in runtime with the compiled code.
I don’t want to be dependent on an VM, thats what i meant with compiled :)
Probably there is a reason Lisp is like it is? Lisp was designed to program other languages and to compute with symbolic representations of code and data. The boundary between code and data is no longer there. This influences the design AND the implementation of a programming language.
Lisp has got its syntactical features to generate new code, translate that code and execute it. Thus pre-parsed code is also using the same data structures (symbols, lists, numbers, characters, ...) that are used for other programs, too.
Lisp knows its data at runtime - you can query everything for its type or class. Classes are objects themselves, as are functions. So these elements of the programming language and the programs also are first-class objects, they can be manipulated as such. Dynamic language has nothing to do with 'dynamic typing'.
'Dynamic language' means that the elements of the programming language (for example via meta classes and the meta-object protocol) and the program (its classes, functions, methods, slots, inheritance, ...) can be looked at runtime and can be modified at runtime.
Probably the more of these features you add to a language, the more it will look like Lisp. Since Lisp is pretty much the local maximum of a simple, dynamic, programmable programming language. If you want some of these features, then you might want to think which features of your other program language you have to give up or are willing to give up. For example for a simple code-as-data language, the whole C syntax model might not be practical.
So C-like and 'dynamic language' might not really be a good fit - the syntax is one part of the whole picture. But even the C syntax model limits us how easy we can work with a dynamic language.
C# has always allowed for self-modifying code.
C# 1 allowed you to essentially create and compile code on the fly.
C# 3 added "expression trees", which offered a limited way to dynamically generate code using an object model and abstract syntax trees.
C# 4 builds on that by incorporating support for the "Dynamic Language Runtime". This is probably as close as you are going to get to LISP-like capabilities on the .NET platform in a compiled language.
You might want to consider using C++ with LLVM for (mostly) portable code generation. You can even pull in clang as well to work in C parse trees (note that clang has incomplete support for C++ currently, but is written in C++ itself)
For example, you could write a self-modification core in C++ to interface with clang and LLVM, and the rest of the program in C. Store the parse tree for the main program alongside the self-modification code, then manipulate it with clang at runtime. Clang will let you directly manipulate the AST tree in any way, then compile it all the way down to machine code.
Keep in mind that manipulating your AST in a compiled language will always mean including a compiler (or interpreter) with your program. LLVM is just an easy option for this.
JavaScirpt + V8 (the Chrome JavaScript compiler)
JavaScript is
dynamic
self-modifying (self-evaluating) (well, sort of, depending on your definition)
has a C-like syntax (again, sort of, that's the best you will get for dynamic)
And you now can compile it with V8: http://code.google.com/p/v8/
"Dynamic language" is a broad term that covers a wide variety of concepts. Dynamic typing is supported by C# 4.0 which is a compiled language. Objective-C also supports some features of dynamic languages. However, none of them are even close to Lisp in terms of supporting self modifying code.
To support such a degree of dynamism and self-modifying code, you should have a full-featured compiler to call at run time; this is pretty much what an interpreter really is.
Try groovy. It's a dynamic Java-JVM based language that is compiled at runtime. It should be able to execute its own code.
http://groovy.codehaus.org/
Otherwise, you've always got Perl, PHP, etc... but those are not, as you suggest, C/C++/D- like languages.
I don’t want to be dependent on an VM, thats what i meant with compiled :)
If that's all you're looking for, I'd recommend Python or Ruby. They can both run on their own virtual machines and the JVM and the .Net CLR. Thus, you can choose any runtime you want. Of the two, Ruby seems to have more meta-programming facilities, but Python seems to have more mature implementations on other platforms.
I am working on some code coverage for my applications. Now, I know that code coverage is an activity linked to the type of tests that you create and the language for which you wish to do the code coverage.
My question is: Is there any possible way to do some generic code coverage? Like in, can we have a set of features/test cases, which can be run (along with a lot more specific tests for the application under test) to get the code coverage for say 10% or more of the code?
More like, if I wish to build a framework for code coverage, what is the best possible way to go about making a generic one? Is it possible to have some functionality automated or generalized?
I'm not sure that generic coverage tools are the holy grail, for a couple of reasons:
Coverage is not a goal, it's an instrument. It tells you which parts of the code are not entirely hit by a test. It does not say anything about how good the tests are.
Generated tests can not guess the semantics of your code. Frameworks that generate tests for you only can deduct meaning from reading your code, which in essence could be wrong, because the whole point of unittesting is to see if the code actually behaves like you intended it too.
Because the automated framework will generate artificial coverage, you can never tell wether a piece of code is tested with a proper unittest, or superficially tested by a framework. I'd rather have untested code show up as uncovered, so I fix that.
What you could do (and I've done ;-) ) is write a generic test for testing Java beans. By reflection, you can test a Java bean against the Sun spec of a Java bean. Assert that equals and hashcode are both implemented (or neither of them), see that the getter actually returns the value you pushed in with the setter, check wether all properties have getters and setters.
You can do the same basic trick for anything that implements "comparable" for instance.
It's easy to do, easy to maintain and forces you to have clean beans. As for the rest of the unittests, I try to focus on getting important parts tested first and thouroughly.
Coverage can give a false sense of security. Common sense can not be automated.
This is usually achieved by combining static code analysis (Coverity, Klockwork or their free analogs) with dynamic analysis by running a tests against instrumented application (profiler + memory checker). Unfortunately, this is hard to automate test algorythms, most tools are kind of "recorders" able to record traffic/keys/signals - depending on domain and replay them (with minimal changes/substitutions like session ID/user/etc)
I just finished a small project where changes were required to a pre-compiled, but no longer supported, ASP.NET web site. The code was ugly, but it was ugly before it was even compiled, and I'm quite impressed that everything still seems to work fine.
It took some editing, e.g. to remove control declarations, as they get put in a generated file, and conflict with the decompiled base class, but nothing a few hours didn't cure.
Now I'm just curious as to how many others have had how much success doing this. I would actually like to write a CodeProject article on defining, if not automating, the reverse engineering process.
Due to all the compiler sugar that exists in the .NET platform, you can't decompile a binary into the original code without extremely sophisticated decompilers. For instance, the compiler creates classes in the background to handle enclosures. Automating this kind of thing seems like it would be a daunting task. However, handling expected issues just to get it to compile might be scriptable.
Will:
Due to all the compiler sugar that exists in the .NET platform
Fortunately this particular application was incredibly simple, but I don't expect to decompile into the original code, just into code works like the original, or maybe even provides an insight into how the original works, to allow 'splicing' in of new code.
i had to do something similar, and i was actually happier than if i had the code. it might have taken me less time to do it, but the quality of the code after the compiler optimized it was probably better than the original code. So yes, if its a simple application, is relatively simple to do reverse engineer it; on the other hand i would like to avoid having to do that in the future.
If it was written in .NET 1.1 or .NET 2.0 you'll have a lot more success than anything compiled with the VS 2008 compilers, mainly because of the syntactic suger that the new language revisions brought in (Lambda, anonymous classes, etc).
As long as the code wasn't obfuscated then you should be able to use reflector to get viable code, if you then put it into VS you should immidiately find errors in the reflected code.
Be on the look out for variables/ method starting with <>, I see that a lot (particularly when reflecting .NET 3.5).
The worst you can do is export it all to VS, hit compile and determine how many errors there are and make a call from that.
But if it's a simple enough project you should be able to reverse engineer from reflector, at least use reflector to get the general gist of what the code is doing, and then recode yourself.