|Object-oriented parsers firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-08-29)|
|Re: Object-oriented parsers email@example.com (1991-08-29)|
|Re: Object-oriented parsers firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-08-30)|
|Re: Object-oriented parsers email@example.com (1991-08-30)|
|Object-oriented parsers firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-09-02)|
|Re: Object-oriented parsers email@example.com (1991-09-03)|
|Organization:||Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA|
|Date:||Fri, 30 Aug 91 17:34:04 GMT|
In article 91-08-148, firstname.lastname@example.org(Kevin W Wall) writes:
|> ... I think while
|> this might make for a nice research area, it is of little practical value.
|> In particular, is there anything that an OO approach can do that the more
|> traditional approaches CAN'T solve, or even solve just as easily?
I agree that it is impractical to fight existing industry trends. But I
believe that there are real technical limitations to the traditional
approaches. I would say that this is research that will stay on the fringe
for at least five years, but it could change the entire field in ten.
|> I for one, find this a case of simply trying to shoe-horn a problem into
|> an OOD. I always say (sometimes) "use the paradigm that fits the problem;
|> don't try to fit the problem to the paradigm".
Sorry, but I'll have to turn the accusation around. Simply because yacc and
lex are so well understood, most language designers assume that they are the
"best" paradigm to use.
Our view of a problem is mostly determined by the paradigms we understand.
I see this discussion as an attempt to get away from the traditional
Dragon Book paradigm; I don't necessarily think the Object-Oriented paradigm
will be better, but I welcome the attempt to try something new.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.