|java compiler compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (Tom Carley) (2001-02-12)|
|Re: java compiler compilers email@example.com (2001-02-15)|
|Re: java compiler compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (Barry Kelly) (2001-02-17)|
|From:||"Barry Kelly" <email@example.com>|
|Date:||17 Feb 2001 01:35:13 -0500|
|Organization:||Ireland On-Line Customer|
|Posted-Date:||17 Feb 2001 01:35:13 EST|
"Ian L. Kaplan" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> I'm a big antlr fan. I am working on a Java to native compiler and
> I use a C++ parser generated by antlr as my front end.
> I have found that Java has terrible performance in compiler
> applications. Antlr itself is written in Java and it takes minutes
> to process my 5K line Java grammar. I have also written a Java
> class file disassembler, in Java. It is far slower than it would
> have been if written in C++ (see
> http://www.bearcave.com/software/java/javad/index.html for the
> source) . I have chosen to write my compiler in C++ rather than
> Java because of these performance issues, among other things (e.g.,
> Java has no generic support, like C++'s templates).
To try and moderate this "bad news" anecdote about java as a compiler
environment, note that Borland's JBuilder 4 is written entirely in
java, and you can find the (compiled) class files for the ide and
compiler front end in the file jbuilder.jar.
You can download the Foundation version of JBuilder 4 from Borland at
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.