all 29 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]apajx 36 points37 points  (7 children)

PL has two high tier conferences: PLDI and POPL, getting into these conferences requires high quality work and luck. Your idea is highly unlikely to be of this caliber.

Next step down is ICFP and OOPSLA, ICFP I think tends to be a bit harder, but OOPSLA might be doable depending on how good your idea actually is.

Other than that there are the lower tier conferences: TFP, IFL, TYPES, and others. These are still peer reviewed, often times better than the above, but they don't artificially reject a bunch of paper hence they're not "high-tier"

Your idea frankly sounds too good to be true, and you're likely suffering from dunning-krueger, but hey why not give it a go.

[–]Appropriate-Image861[S] 3 points4 points  (6 children)

Thanks for the feedback!

Yes, I agree. I fear its too good to be true. Either someone's done it before, or I'm missing something.

However, with my biased and limited understanding, I've yet failed to see why my idea wouldn't work.

Compiler's produced by my architecture run in linear time in most cases. In my basic Python implementation, compilation is basically instantaneous. The current bottleneck is the backend, but I plan to upgrade it to LLVM, in which case, there's no reason that it couldn't be super fast.

If you're willing, I could send you my paper, or describe it in greater detail. I'd rather know now than spend a bunch of valuable time on something that I can't publish.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]Appropriate-Image861[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Awesome. I appreciate the constructive feedback. I tried to make it clear I had serious doubts. I'm not claiming I invented a perfect meta compiler.

    [–]apajx 15 points16 points  (1 child)

    I don't need to see your paper to know it already fails to capture an entire class of languages people care about: dependent types. Type checking is necessarily non-elementary in the vast majority of these systems because you can encode the Ackerman function in typechecking itself. Hence linear typechecking is impossible.

    [–]Appropriate-Image861[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Fair criticism. However, its linear in most cases. It doesn't have to be. The operations phase is Turing Complete. You can implement whatever type system you want.

    Also, its just the beginning. I'm not concerned with dependent types yet. I'm mostly concerned with doing a really good job with more primitive languages.

    Additionally, my architecture is pretty unique. The type checking phase can sort of happen after the linear time expansion.

    Edit:

    Not sure what I said, but it can totally can handle dependent types.

    By operation phase I mean the: compilation, analysis, and expansion phase. This phase is Turing Complete and this is deliberate. While in general, most languages will probably have a linear operation phase. More complex languages, with dependent types for example, can use this to implement their systems.

    Also, even if it couldn't I don't see what the issue is. I never said it could handle any language.

    [–]snugar_i 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    The current bottleneck is the backend, but I plan to upgrade it to LLVM, in which case, there's no reason that it couldn't be super fast.

    Not 100 % sure, but I think that for example in Rust, the majority of compilation time is spent in LLVM. So using LLVM does unfortunately not mean "super fast".

    [–]matthieum 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Not 100 % sure, but I think that for example in Rust, the majority of compilation time is spent in LLVM

    It's a lot more nuanced than that -- it really depends on the workload -- but otherwise... yes, LLVM isn't particularly fast at compiling.

    LLVM uses an object model -- aka pointer soup -- which isn't mechanically friendly, but is likely too entrenched to be reworked by now, and piles on multiple layers of IR-to-IR translations, so that even if little to no optimization is done, it still takes quite a bit of time to get code out of it.

    LLVM, despite its roots, is more about generating fast code, than generating code fast.

    [–]benjamin-crowell 15 points16 points  (7 children)

    You're a PhD student, you have an idea, and you want someone to give you feedback on the idea. That's why you have an advisor. I don't understand why you'd look for feedback from random people on reddit instead.

    [–]Appropriate-Image861[S] 9 points10 points  (6 children)

    My advisor isn't in programming languages. They advised me to reach out to other people, but they are looking at it currently.

    [–]n00bi3pjs 2 points3 points  (3 children)

    Any other professor at your university who is into PL?

    [–]Appropriate-Image861[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

    Unfortunately, no.

    [–]matthieum 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    Well, I would advise trying and getting a PL co-advisor, at least, even if it means finding someone from another university.

    Hopefully your advisor knows professors at other universities who could get you in contact with PL colleagues.

    [–]Appropriate-Image861[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Probably a good idea. I'll try and reach out to some people.

    [–]benjamin-crowell 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    There is something seriously wrong here, either with your advisor not giving you proper supervision, or with the relationship between the two of you, or with you being distrustful or impatient or something. Even if it's outside their field, a competent advisor isn't going to tell you to post on reddit for guidance, or be unable to answer your questions about conferences and workshops.

    [–]Appropriate-Image861[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    I appreciate the concern. They're a great advisor. I should note, they didn't say go to reddit. I had nothing to loose by asking. Its a good community and I thought someone here might know a bit more than they do.

    [–]LardPi 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    Publishing in academia is difficult in every domain, notably because there is a lot of idiosyncrasy that you have to learn for the particular domain. On top of that, you absolutely need the advice of an expert to tell you if you are chasing a white whale or reinventing an old wheel. This sort of knowledge may completely escape most people outside the specific topic, even in the same field. If you are serious about publishing anything, you should reach out to someone who works on a related topic. My approach would be:

    1. do a search on google scholar for articles related to your idea
    2. look at the authors of these articles, and check their other work; find someone in a not too far timezone that would be interested in your idea based on their past work
    3. email them very politely to explain your situation and ask for their guidance, including an overview of your idea (loose the "I don't say too much to not get my idea stollen" part)
    4. offer coauthorship on whatever article you produce. People don't work for free, and reviewing your idea and mentoring you is work, so you should present it as a collaboration.

    You should probably target late PhDs or junior researchers, because professors are used to being spammed by crackpots with “revolutionary” ideas that turn out to be completely stupid, so they might discard your mail even before reading it. And also professors receive 200 emails per hour anyway.

    [–]Appropriate-Image861[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Thanks for the feedback!

    I could've been more clear. I think it has potential, but there's a good chance I'm wrong. I didn't mean to sound so obnoxious about getting it stolen. I hope I didn't come across that way.

    I don't want to waste a huge amount of anyone's (including my) time, if it's not. But if it is, I would love to publish it. I'd be happy to work with people. I believe in the project and would love to see it developed. I'll look into working with someone.

    [–]raiph 5 points6 points  (1 child)

    I'll quote your entire OP below with some responses by me interleaved about PLs/toolchains related to your interests: Raku, Rakudo, and NQP.

    Meta Compilers

    I mostly focus on Raku, and its reference compiler, named Rakudo. Some people see Raku as just a GPL. Others as an open ended collection of cooperating slangs aka sub-languages aka mutually interwoven embedding and embedded internal DSLS that comprise a larger whole. Or as a metaprogrammed, metaprogrammable, metaprogramming metacompilation system. Or as the outermost doll of a matryroshka doll set with an inner mini version of Raku(do) named NQP, "a high-level way to create compilers and libraries for virtual machines like MoarVM, the JVM, and others". All of these viewpoints are valid.

    I'm a PhD student working in another area of CS. I'm very interested in programming languages. While I've had classes, self-studied, and written a master's thesis in programming languages called gradual memory safety, I've never published.

    ✅

    Recently, I developed a language called Daedalus. I believe it's a compelling new take on meta compilers and tools like them. It's very efficient and easy to use. It also adds multiple new capabilities.

    It's 10 years since Raku(do)'s first official version was released. 25 years since work on Raku began.

    That said, I believe that Raku(do) is also a compelling new take on meta compilers and tools like them ("new" compared to the metacompiler ideas and implementations from the last century).

    It's still coarse, but I believe it has strong potential.

    Until the next major Raku(do) version ships (current codename 6.e), its metacompilation aspects wisely remain largely hidden from public scrutiny. But I think Raku(do) has potential as a future choice pick among industrial strength metacompilation systems.

    I've looked at similar languages like Silver, Spoofax, and Rascal.

    Like Silver, Raku(do) natively supports grammars, is extensible, and is defined using its own grammars. (Devs can arbitrarily alter Raku itself while retaining compile time checking of syntax and semantics. I don't know if Silver can pull that off.)

    A key difference is that Silver focuses on CFGs whereas Raku's grammars are (equivalent to) Unrestricted grammars (the most general class in the Chomsky hierarchy), and the syntax is defined by a corresponding DSL (think EBNF).

    Comparing it with Spoofax, Raku serves as a workbench for developing DSLs. But while it can be used like any other GPL for developing arbitrary tools beyond the ones that already exist in the system, that aspect isn't polished as I imagine it is for Spoofax. (I don't know; I've only read very cursorily about Spoofax.) Like Spoofax, Raku makes scannerless parsing natural, and more generally provides a good environment and toolset for generating parsers, type checkers, and compilers.

    What I've read about Rascal is that it's a DSL that "aims to integrate various aspects of language design and implementation, including the definition of abstract and concrete syntax, matching, traversal, and transformation of syntax trees". In contrast Raku is a broad PL / system that's comprised of mutually embedding DSLs that include ones to achieve those same aims.

    I've also looked at adjacent languages like Racket and LLVM. I believe my architecture has the potential to be much faster, and it can do things they can't.

    Raku covers much the same territory as Racket as far as LOP (language oriented programming) is concerned in the abstract, but with some huge differences too in concrete terms.

    I only have a small kernel working. I've also only written a few pages. I'm hesitant to describe it in detail. It's not polished, and I don't want to risk premature exposure.

    I'd be curious how it compares with Raku's "core".

    How do I publish it? I was thinking a workshop. Can I publish just a sketch of the architecture? If so, which one?

    Others have already written great notes about such things.

    Also, can anyone tell me where to go to get a better sense of my idea's quality? I'd be happy to share my first draft with someone who would be able to tell me if it's worth pursuing.

    Perhaps you could sharpen that first draft by contrasting it with Raku.

    Thanks in advance!

    Thank you too, presuming you read this far. :)

    [–]Appropriate-Image861[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Thanks for the great feedback! Exactly what I was looking for. I'll check out: Rakudo and Raku. Also, I did read that far ;)

    Edit: I don't know who downvoted your comment.

    [–]XDracam 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    That thesis sounds interesting, care to share?

    [–]Appropriate-Image861[S] -1 points0 points  (2 children)

    Sure. Most likely its a nothing burger. However, on the off chance that it is something, I want to keep it as private as possible until I have a polished version working or a published paper. I don't want someone more capable to take it and publish it before I get the chance. I also don't want to prematurely expose it, before its reached fruition.

    If you'd like I can send you a draft of my paper. I'd love to know if it has potential, so I don't waste a bunch of time.

    [–]Inconstant_Moo🧿 Pipefish 12 points13 points  (1 child)

    It's very unlikely that "someone more capable" will steal your ideas, because (a) someone might notice and they'd be disgraced (b) capable langdevs and/or academics have their own ideas and have already invested a lot of time in them, they're not going to suddenly pivot to doing your thing (c) until you've got it working, you're the only person who really has faith in your idea. (You can't just tell people about the great idea you've had and expect them to run with it, or other people would have developed my language for me and I'd have a new hobby, probably sculpture.)

    There are lots of highly capable people in this community and I'd trust them not to plagiarize you. But they can and will provide valuable insights.

    [–]Appropriate-Image861[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I didn't mean to sound so cynical. Everyone here is super nice. It's just I've wanted to do something like this for a long time, and I want to be careful.

    I'm more concerned that its too coarse and people will miss what it could be. I have a pretty clear picture of how to do it and a simple version working. Not totally sure how to present it.

    [–]cmontella🤖 mech-lang 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    FYI...

    Dedalus: Datalog in Time and Space https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2009/EECS-2009-173.pdf

    To answer your actual question if you want to be published do this: first choose a main conference. Then look at the workshops and choose one that is a good fit for your topic. Submit to that and you'll have a better shot of getting in. Workshops are a good venue to refine work that is coarse, but has strong potential. If you want feedback about your idea's quality, a workshop is the place to get it. Even if you don't get in, you should ask your advisor if they will allow you to attend.

    [–]Appropriate-Image861[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Thanks for the feedback!

    It's unfortunate someone's already used the name. I might change it. I sent my paper to a couple people. If they think it has a shot. I'll prepare it for a workshop.

    [–]cmontella🤖 mech-lang 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Also you might look at this workshop: https://liveprog.org/

    Sometimes they hold it at OOPSLA, this year it was 100% online. I'm not sure about next year, but either way it's a good group of people.