|Dragon Book - update necessary? firstname.lastname@example.org (Pred.) (2000-10-08)|
|Re: Dragon Book - update necessary? email@example.com (Randall Hyde) (2000-10-10)|
|Re: Dragon Book - update necessary? LLkParsing@aol.com (2000-10-12)|
|Re: Dragon Book - update necessary? firstname.lastname@example.org (Randall Hyde) (2000-10-15)|
|Re: Dragon Book - update necessary? email@example.com (Bruce Hoult) (2000-10-19)|
|Re: parsing C++, was Dragon Book - update necessary? firstname.lastname@example.org (2000-10-22)|
|Date:||22 Oct 2000 01:22:28 -0400|
|Organization:||Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta GA, USA|
|References:||00-10-061 00-10-067 00-10-093 00-10-109 00-10-130|
Bruce Hoult <email@example.com> writes:
> Bjarne Stroustrup once said on BIX (hmm .. are you *that* rhyde?) that
> one of his biggest mistakes in cfront was in allowing the other Bell
> Labs guys to convince him to use yacc and that he'd love to have the
> funds to get an intern to redo it as recursive descent. The reason
> was that recursive descent is more work upfront but you get good error
> messages almost for free, while yacc is easy to get going but the work
> required to get decent error messages was nearly unbounded.
Of course, nowadays there are yacc-like tools that will generate
recursive-decent parsers. ANTLR comes to mind.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.