Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers

napi@ms.mimos.my (Mohd Hanafiah Abdullah)
Tue, 28 Nov 1995 23:58:19 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[6 earlier articles]
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers parrt@parr-research.com (Terence John Parr) (1995-11-20)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers bill@amber.ssd.hcsc.com (1995-11-22)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers elliottc@logica.com (1995-11-24)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers jgj@ssd.hcsc.com (1995-11-28)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers will@ccs.neu.edu (1995-11-28)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers ddean@dynastar.cs.princeton.edu (1995-11-28)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers napi@ms.mimos.my (1995-11-28)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers ok@cs.rmit.edu.au (1995-11-29)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers mparks@oz.net (1995-11-29)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers jmccarty@spdmail.spd.dsccc.com (1995-11-29)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers pardo@cs.washington.edu (1995-11-29)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers CSPT@giraffe.ru.ac.za (Pat Terry) (1995-11-30)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers gvcormac@plg.uwaterloo.ca (Gord Cormack) (1995-12-01)
[9 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: napi@ms.mimos.my (Mohd Hanafiah Abdullah)
Keywords: parse, LALR, LL(1)
Organization: Malaysian Inst of Microelectronic Systems (MIMOS)
References: 95-11-051 95-11-138 95-11-195
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 23:58:19 GMT

"steve (s.s.) simmons" <simmons@bnr.ca> writes:
> parsers are a small matter of programming (SMOP). I do notice among
> peers in industry that people are no longer snubbing the idea of writing
> a recursive parser when it is appropiate.


Bill Leonard <Bill.Leonard@mail.hcsc.com> wrote:
>I've noticed that, too, and I really wonder why. At the same time that
>we're trying desperately to develop tools that do the programming for you
>in other areas of software development, and we already have tools (e.g.,
>yacc) that can program a parser for you, why are we regressing?


Let's compare LALR parsers with LL ones:


o Classes of grammars (little edge to LALR)
o Development cycle (edge to LALR)
o Error detection and recovery (even)
o Programmer's satisfaction (little edge to LL)
o Speed of execution (little edge to LL)


So, if speed is top priority I would go with LL parsers.


Napi


p.s. I stand corrected :-)
--
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/hyplan/napi.html
--

Post a followup to this message

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