|Visual Parse 3.0: is it OK for me ? email@example.com (1999-03-05)|
|Re: Visual Parse 3.0: is it OK for me ? firstname.lastname@example.org (1999-03-06)|
|Re: Visual Parse 3.0: is it OK for me ? email@example.com (Markus Kohler) (1999-03-09)|
|Re: Visual Parse 3.0: is it OK for me ? firstname.lastname@example.org (1999-03-09)|
|Re: Visual Parse 3.0: is it OK for me ? email@example.com (Eddy Poullet) (1999-03-22)|
|Re: Visual Parse 3.0: is it OK for me ? firstname.lastname@example.org (Darren Forcier) (1999-03-23)|
|From:||email@example.com (Robert M. Muench)|
|Date:||9 Mar 1999 11:50:35 -0500|
|Organization:||Customer of UUNET Deutschland GmbH, Dortmund, Germany|
On 5 Mar 1999 11:14:48 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>I use an evaluation version of VP3.0.
>It seems pretty bugged, and I really hesitate using it for my project.
>Does anyone have some serious working experience with VP3.0 ?
HI, I have used VP++ for some time but finally switched to ANTLR.
Biggest problems are you can't include code into your grammar file
(there is a way but it's undocumented and has some problems). It
doesn't support the specification of grammars in such a nice way as
ANTLR does. It's a DFA based parser whereas ANTLR produces a top-down
parser (at least I think that's what it does ;-)). This means the
generated code of ANLTR is quite debug-able, with the VP++ stuff you
can only debug your code not the parser internals.
>I thought about choosing VP3.0 because of its graphical interface
>and its clean separation of grammar file from the rest. Are there
>other reasons to choose it instead of ANTLR or classical Flex/Bison ?
For me ANLTR is the best tool at all for parser stuff! It's easy,
fast, high quality and supports really advanced features missing in
every other tool.
Robert M. Muench, Karlsruhe, Germany
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.