|is lex useful? email@example.com (Dan E. Kelley) (1996-06-21)|
|Re: is lex useful? Or how about these other tools... firstname.lastname@example.org (INPACT5 inpact5) (1996-06-26)|
|Re: is lex useful? Or how about these other tools... email@example.com (Scott Stanchfield) (1996-06-27)|
|Re: is lex useful? Or how about these other tools... firstname.lastname@example.org (P A Keller) (1996-06-27)|
|Re: is lex useful? Or how about these other tools... email@example.com (1996-06-30)|
|Re: is lex useful? Or how about these other tools... daniels@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (1996-07-02)|
|Re: is lex useful? Or how about these other tools... firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-07-03)|
|From:||P A Keller <email@example.com>|
|Date:||27 Jun 1996 11:39:55 -0400|
|Organization:||Collaborative Computational Project 4, Daresbury Laboratory, UK|
inpact5 <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>I've been looking at compiler tools for a few weeks now and
>I'd rather like an answer to your question as well. I would
>also like to add a bit to it...
>Which is the better system of compiler tools :
> lex/yacc (flex/bison/byacc/...)
> visual parse++
>Any other reasonable ones that I missed?
Yes - PRECC. Never used it myself - I went with PCCTS in the end, because
of the ease of building AST's, and the SORCERER utility. PRECC is a parser
generator only - you supply your own lexer (but flex works fine). It looks
to have similar power to PCCTS's ANTLR (infinite lookahead, good attribute
handling, etc). Also, the input to the parser generator is a literate
program, which makes some people very happy. Find out more from:
Dept. of Biology and
University of Bath,
Bath, BA2 7AY, UK.
Tel. (+44/0)1225 826826 x 4302 | Email: P.A.Keller@bath.ac.uk (Internet)
Fax. (+44/0)1225 826449 | P.A.Keller%bath.ac.uk@UKACRL (BITNET)
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.