Re: is lex useful?

Ronald Kanagy <rkanagy@erols.com>
23 Jun 1996 23:24:53 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
is lex useful? kelley@phys.ocean.dal.ca (Dan E. Kelley) (1996-06-21)
Re: is lex useful? qjackson@direct.ca (1996-06-23)
Re: is lex useful? rkanagy@erols.com (Ronald Kanagy) (1996-06-23)
Re: is lex useful? qjackson@direct.ca (1996-06-24)
Re: is lex useful? kelley@Phys.Ocean.Dal.Ca (1996-06-24)
Re: is lex useful? Scott.Nicol@infoadvan.com (1996-06-24)
Re: is lex useful? kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de (1996-06-24)
Re: is lex useful? bos@serpentine.com (1996-06-26)
Re: is lex useful? dhami@mdd.comm.mot.com (1996-06-26)
[20 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Ronald Kanagy <rkanagy@erols.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 23 Jun 1996 23:24:53 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 96-06-073
Keywords: lex, performance



At 05:07 PM 6/21/96 -0400, you wrote:
>[if lex is so swell, why doesn't anyone use it?]


Lex is good in situations where a language is still being designed and a
scanner is to be quickly built. But, in production compilers, after the
language has be designed and stable, lex scanners tend to be too slow
compared to hand-coded scanners and is unacceptable. Therefore, one would
normally find hand-coded scanners in these situations.
[Has anyone actually timed a flex scanner vs. a hand-coded one? -John]




--


Post a followup to this message

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