Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name (2012-04-17) |
| Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? askmeforit@myisp.com (Joe Schmo) (2012-04-21) |
| Re: Writing parsers, was Good practical language and OS agnostic text? ulimakesacompiler@googlemail.com (Uli Kusterer) (2012-04-22) |
| From: | Uli Kusterer <ulimakesacompiler@googlemail.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:18:32 +0200 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 12-04-019 12-04-054 |
| Keywords: | parse, tools |
| Posted-Date: | 22 Apr 2012 10:31:20 EDT |
On 21.04.2012, at 10:53, Joe Schmo wrote:
> I think the whole "write a grammar and feed it through a tool to produce a
> lexer and parser" thing is something to avoid, at least at first (I'm
> avoiding it like the plague, FWIW).
While I generally think that compiler-compilers and parser and lexer
generators are great domain-specific languages that help streamline the
process (at least if your language fits in their constraints, which for
example my pet language doesn't do), I also had huge problems using them at
first.
Without knowing the problems and the general approach that is taken when
writing a parser, some of the things these tools do seem awfully roundabout
and over-complicated. It helped me a lot to just write my own lexers and
parsers, because then it suddenly became apparent what the problems *are* that
these tools protect me from.
Cheers,
-- Uli Kusterer
http://stacksmith.org
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.