Re: Java compiler courses

Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com>
27 Apr 2007 11:27:43 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[8 earlier articles]
Re: Java compiler courses DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-04-25)
Re: Java compiler courses torbenm@app-7.diku.dk (2007-04-26)
Re: Java compiler courses usenet@gmx.info (Michael Klemm) (2007-04-26)
Re: Java compiler courses gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2007-04-26)
Re: Java compiler courses gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2007-04-26)
Re: Java compiler courses cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2007-04-26)
Re: Java compiler courses DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-04-27)
Re: Java compiler courses DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-04-27)
Re: Java compiler courses gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2007-04-28)
Re: Java compiler courses DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-04-29)
Re: Java compiler courses gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2007-04-29)
Re: Java compiler courses marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2007-05-10)
Re: Java compiler courses torbenm@app-2.diku.dk (2007-05-11)
[3 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 27 Apr 2007 11:27:43 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 07-04-074 07-04-084 07-04-109
Keywords: courses, Java, OOP
Posted-Date: 27 Apr 2007 11:27:43 EDT

Torben Ęgidius Mogensen wrote:


>>A modular OO approach, as required by Java, IMO is a good starting
>>point for every big project.
>
>
> Modular, yes. OO, maybe. I have yet to see any major benefits OO
> gives you in compiler writing that you can't get through polymorphism
> and ML-style modules. And ML-style datatstructres are (IMO) much
> easier than objects for representing syntax trees etc.
>
> Torben
> [I entirely agree. Data structures and pattern matching are really useful,
> OOP isn't for writing compilers. So I write stuff in perl. -John]


My point of OOP was related to the design phase, in detail in education.
It makes a difference whether a language *allows* for OOP, or *requires*
OOP. When OOP is a requirement, a project must be structured in the
first step, before one can start hacking code ;-)


For the implementation itself, other languages may be more comfortable.
Pattern matching and other tree processing certainly is a criterium for
the choice of a concrete implementation language, for compiler projects.


DoDi


Post a followup to this message

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