Re: Visual Parse 3.0: is it OK for me ?

Eddy Poullet <>
22 Mar 1999 01:14:44 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Visual Parse 3.0: is it OK for me ? (1999-03-05)
Re: Visual Parse 3.0: is it OK for me ? (1999-03-06)
Re: Visual Parse 3.0: is it OK for me ? (Markus Kohler) (1999-03-09)
Re: Visual Parse 3.0: is it OK for me ? (1999-03-09)
Re: Visual Parse 3.0: is it OK for me ? (Eddy Poullet) (1999-03-22)
Re: Visual Parse 3.0: is it OK for me ? (Darren Forcier) (1999-03-23)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Eddy Poullet <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 22 Mar 1999 01:14:44 -0500
Organization: FICS Group
References: 99-03-029 99-03-030
Keywords: tools


I use VisualParse 3.0 from since Version 2. It's a good parser, very
nice to debug and use. Unicode Support. Perfect to begin to
understand a grammar .... Some drawbacks : The interface for V3.0 can
be really improved and probably the interface for version 2.0 under
some aspect is better. SandStone write on his webpage (in first
quarter) :

>>We have started a subscription with version 3.0. We will be coming
out with releases bimonthly, or quarterly. The subscription price
includes 1 year of updates and support. We have many exciting
enhancements already in development for new releases, so the
subscription is a good way to keep up to date with the latest
technology<< . Dust, wind....Really -> nothing !!!!

The support is rather bad : they don't answer or the answer is to be
off the point (except for the key lock!). I suspect that the
developer() are under contract with the vendor. Sometime, in some
(seldom) case, the lexer hang in an infinite loop on unexpected
char. Difficult access to the shift function in a rule (the same shift
function is used for all the rules) is annoying .

I believe that effectively YACC++ is a very good product and very good
support (they try really to help you). Probably motre difficult to
use and understand for a novice in the Lex/Parse world (especially
when using the Abstract Syntax Tree construct ) ! It doesn't support
Unicode. They have me wrotten that it's on planning but until
now..... I wait ( We need absolutely the Unicode support ).


Dwight VandenBerghe wrote:

> On 5 Mar 1999 11:14:48 -0500, wrote:
> >- I will have to deal with tricky things like switching grammar (for
> >bilingual use) and syntax coloring. Which tool will be more flexible ?

Post a followup to this message

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