|Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers email@example.com (1995-11-29)|
|Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-12-09)|
|Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers email@example.com (1995-12-12)|
|Better tools than lex & yacc(was Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers) firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-12-17)|
|From:||email@example.com (Dinesh Kulkarni)|
|Date:||17 Dec 1995 00:30:07 -0500|
|Organization:||University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame|
|References:||95-11-234 95-12-062 95-12-074|
|Keywords:||parse, LALR, LL(1), errors, comment|
firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael Parkes) writes:
>Additionally, lots of people here refer to 'lex' and 'yacc'. These tools were
>developed around 1976 ! and are very old. Most modern tools support
>intergrated lexical, syntax and semantic analysis. Some even support code
>generation. Hence, even mentioning 'lex' and 'yacc' implies that better tools
>have not been tried.
>scoping and so on. Hence, what I am really trying to say is that it is not
>quite 'lex' and 'yacc' is it. This is just one of the really great tools out
>there. Go try them !.
It is not clear which tool you are referring to. More generically,
would you care to recommend any such 'state of the art' tools? Lex &
yacc (or flex & bison) are so popular (IMHO) because they are widely
available on a number of platforms, stable and well-understood (help
in the form of books, examples, experienced users etc. is
available). Are there any 'better' tools that
1. are available on multiple platforms;
2. are at least reasonably stable and complete
(i.e. not incomplete prototypes or orphans abandoned by students who have
3. do not cost a fortune?
If there are such tools, I am sure many on this forum would like to
know about them. Until then, lex & yacc will continue to rule - even
if they are far behind the state of the art as you claim.
[People seem to like PCCTS. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.