{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.007444168734491315, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0024813895781637717, 'mean_word_length': 5.207692307692308, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On Interpreter-Oriented Definitions of Programming Languages

The constructive approach to the formal definition of the semantics of programming languages has much in common with the notion that a language can be defined by an actual processor which compiles or interprets programs written in that language. The two approaches can be unified if the processor is written in a sufficiently powerful and expressive high-level language so that it closely models a formal definition for the processed language. The resulting processor has the conceptual clarity of the formal scheme as well as the advantages of being executable on a real computer. These points are illustrated by exhibiting a formal definition of a minilanguage using the Vienna Definition Language and an equivalent definition using ALGOL 68.