CS 415 - Programming Languages - Programming Assignments

CS 415 - Programming Languages - Programming Assignments

Instructions

Start the programming assignments early! Completing the course project is a large, complex, and rewarding task, which is made much easier by giving adequate forethought to design. The course schedule allows ample time to complete the assignments -- take advantage of it.

Documentation and structuring should be incorporated into programs from the beginning. Neither instructors nor teaching assistants will help with incomprehensible programs.

I highly recommend that you find an account on a Unix (or Mac OSX) machine or that you install Cygwin on your Windows machine.

The instructional lab machines should have OCaml, Ruby and Python pre-installed.

Language Guides

Ocaml. Start with Jason Hickey's Introduction to Objective CAML and move on to the official OCaml tutorial.

Ruby. You might consider the official Ruby in Twenty Minutes.

Python. Try the official Beginner's Guide or Guido's Tutorial.

Cool. See the course webpage on Cool.

C. Google for "C tutorial" or somesuch. For example, try this tutorial from Drexel University.

PA1: The Rosetta Stone

Project Handout (also covers PA0)
Project Files
- pa1-hint.zip - Shows the same simple program written in five languages.
- pa1-testcases.zip - Gives five "starter" testcases to help you evaluate your work.
Grading (out of 50)
- 40 points - for autograder tests (8 points per language)
- 5 points - for a valid PA0 submission
- 4 points - for a clear description in your README
  - 4 - thorough discussion of design decisions (including language comparisons) and choice of test cases; a few paragraphs of coherent English sentences should be fine
  - 2 - vague or hard to understand; omits important details
  - 0 - little to no effort
- 1 point - for a valid testcase.list file

PA2: The Lexer

Project Handout
Grading (out of 50)
- 38 points - for autograder tests (1 point per correct test, maximum score of 38)
- 4 points - for a clear description in your README
  - 4 - thorough discussion of design decisions (including handling of strings and comments) and choice of test cases; a few paragraphs of coherent English sentences should be fine
  - 2 - vague or hard to understand; omits important details
  - 0 - little to no effort
- 4 point - for valid good.cl and bad.cl files
  - 4 - wide range of test cases added, stressing most Cool features and an error condition
  - 2 - added some tests, but the scope not sufficiently broad
  - 0 - little to no effort
- 4 point - for code cleanliness
  - 4 - code is mostly clean and well-commented
  - 2 - code is sloppy and/or poorly commented in places
  - 0 - little to no effort to organize and document code

PA3: The Parser

Project Handout
Grading (out of 50)
- 38 points - for autograder tests (1 point per correct test, maximum score of 38)
- 4 points - for a clear description in your README
  - 4 - thorough discussion of design decisions (e.g., the handling of let) and choice of test cases; a few paragraphs of coherent English sentences should be fine
  - 2 - vague or hard to understand; omits important details
  - 0 - little to no effort
- 4 point - for valid good.cl and bad.cl files
  - 4 - wide range of test cases added, stressing most Cool features and an error condition
  - 2 - added some tests, but the scope not sufficiently broad
  - 0 - little to no effort
- 4 point - for code cleanliness
  - 4 - code is mostly clean and well-commented
  - 2 - code is sloppy and/or poorly commented in places
  - 0 - little to no effort to organize and document code

PA4: The Semantic Analyzer

Project Handout
Grading (out of 100)
- 76 points - for autograder tests
- 8 points - for a clear description in your README
  - 8 - thorough discussion of design decisions (e.g., handling of the class hierarchy, case and new and dispatch) and choice of test cases; a few paragraphs of coherent English sentences should be fine
  - 4 - vague or hard to understand; omits important details
  - 0 - little to no effort
- 8 point - for valid good.cl, bad1.cl, bad2.cl and bad3.cl files
  - 8 - wide range of test cases added, stressing most Cool features and three error conditions
  - 4 - added some tests, but the scope not sufficiently broad
  - 0 - little to no effort
- 8 point - for code cleanliness
  - 8 - code is mostly clean and well-commented
  - 4 - code is sloppy and/or poorly commented in places
  - 0 - little to no effort to organize and document code
(The "PA4 Semantics Checkpoint" counts as a Written Assignment and is graded separately.)

PA5: The Interpreter

Project Handout
Grading (out of 100)
- 76 points - for autograder tests
- 8 points - for a clear description in your README
  - 8 - thorough discussion of design decisions (e.g., the handling of let and new and dispatch) and choice of test cases; a few paragraphs of coherent English sentences should be fine
  - 4 - vague or hard to understand; omits important details
  - 0 - little to no effort
- 8 point - for valid test1.cl, test2.cl, test3.cl and test4.cl files
  - 8 - wide range of test cases added, stressing most Cool features and some error conditions
  - 4 - added some tests, but the scope not sufficiently broad
  - 0 - little to no effort
- 8 point - for code cleanliness
  - 8 - code is mostly clean and well-commented
  - 4 - code is sloppy and/or poorly commented in places
  - 0 - little to no effort to organize and document code