|Compiler Tools v. C email@example.com (1995-04-28)|
|Re: Compiler Tools v. C scott@INFOADV.MN.ORG (Scott Nicol) (1995-04-29)|
|Re: Compiler Tools v. C firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-05-04)|
|Re: Compiler Tools v. C scott@INFOADV.MN.ORG (Scott Nicol) (1995-05-12)|
|From:||email@example.com (Marc Shepherd)|
|Keywords:||tools, design, comment|
|Date:||Thu, 4 May 1995 12:20:56 GMT|
Scott Nicol <scott@INFOADV.MN.ORG> () writes:
>Lex, on the other hand, is not very useful. The man page for Lex at
>Bell Labs has the following in the "BUGS" section:
> The asteriod to kill this dinosaur is still in orbit.
That's the first time I've encountered this 'spin' on lex. Do you
feel this way just about AT&T lex in particular, or about all "lex-like"
programs (including Flex)?
>If you want to anything the least bit tricky, it is worth it to spend a
>few hours and write a hand-crafted scanner. The code isn't difficult,
>and you gain speed, flexibility, and portability.
The authors of the O'Reilly book argue the opposite--that a hand-crafted
scanner will take you longer to write, may not be much faster, and will
almost certainly be buggier.
Salomon Brothers Inc
[At least one of the authors still feels that way, about flex at least. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.