Instructions

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

• The Reference Manual
• Download OCaml

• Ruby Main Page
• Ruby Documentation
• Download Ruby

• Python Main Page
• Download Python
• Python For Java Programmers

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)
  • 37 points - for autograder tests (1 point per correct test, maximum score of 37)
  • 1 point - for a correct team.txt file
    • 1 - file contains a single word: the uva email address of your partner (e.g., wrw6y)
    • 1 - file is not present at all, and you are working alone
    • 0 - file is present but contains something other than the single word of your partner's email address
  • 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)
  • 37 points - for autograder tests (1 point per correct test, maximum score of 37)
  • 1 point - for a correct team.txt file
    • 1 - file contains a single word: the uva email address of your partner (e.g., wrw6y)
    • 1 - file is not present at all, and you are working alone
    • 0 - file is present but contains something other than the single word of your partner's email address
  • 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)
  • 75 points - for autograder tests
  • 1 point - for a correct team.txt file
    • 1 - file contains a single word: the uva email address of your partner (e.g., wrw6y)
    • 1 - file is not present at all, and you are working alone
    • 0 - file is present but contains something other than the single word of your partner's email address
  • 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)
  • 75 points - for autograder tests
  • 1 point - for a correct team.txt file
    • 1 - file contains a single word: the uva email address of your partner (e.g., wrw6y)
    • 1 - file is not present at all, and you are working alone
    • 0 - file is present but contains something other than the single word of your partner's email address
  • 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