Re: parsing tools, was Dragon Book - update necessary?

LLkParsing@aol.com
5 Nov 2000 20:49:10 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[5 earlier articles]
Re: parsing tools, was Dragon Book - update necessary? iank@idiom.com (2000-11-01)
Re: parsing tools, was Dragon Book - update necessary? jmochel@foliage.com (2000-11-01)
Re: parsing tools, was Dragon Book - update necessary? joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2000-11-01)
Re: parsing tools, was Dragon Book - update necessary? LLkParsing@aol.com (2000-11-01)
Re: parsing tools, was Dragon Book - update necessary? rhyde@cs.ucr.edu (Randall Hyde) (2000-11-04)
Re: parsing tools, was Dragon Book - update necessary? rhyde@cs.ucr.edu (Randall Hyde) (2000-11-04)
Re: parsing tools, was Dragon Book - update necessary? LLkParsing@aol.com (2000-11-05)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: LLkParsing@aol.com
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 5 Nov 2000 20:49:10 -0500
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
References: 00-10-061 00-10-221 00-11-014 00-11-030
Keywords: interpreter, performance

> > - Interpreted languages like Java do not scale unless they can be
> > compiled.
>
> Not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate? Interpreted code
> typically runs some constant factor slower than compiled code. An
> algorithm should "scale" at the same rate whether it is interpreted or
> not.


I should have left off the "unless" part. What I really mean is that
an interpreted language can bog down on large inputs. My example is
not Java, but IBM's REXX language, which is interpreted. We had a
program that worked fine on small inputs. However, run times increased
to well over six hours as the size of the input grew. The YACC rewrite
ran in less than a minute.


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.