Re: Algorithms

Joachim Durchholz <joachim_d@gmx.de>
16 Apr 2002 00:53:35 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Algorithms ACA99SRV@sheffield.ac.uk (Steve Vernon) (2002-04-10)
Re: Algorithms haberg@matematik.su.se (2002-04-13)
Re: Algorithms joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2002-04-16)
Re: Algorithms rboland@unb.ca (Ralph Boland) (2002-04-17)
Re: Algorithms vmakarov@redhat.com (Vladimir Makarov) (2002-04-17)
Re: Algorithms joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2002-04-19)
Re: Parsing Algorithms idbaxter@semdesigns.com (Ira D. Baxter) (2002-04-19)
Re: Parse Algorithms address@in.sig (John Mapley) (2002-04-24)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Joachim Durchholz <joachim_d@gmx.de>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 16 Apr 2002 00:53:35 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 02-04-069 02-04-077
Keywords: parse
Posted-Date: 16 Apr 2002 00:53:35 EDT

Hans Aberg wrote:
> So it seems that once one steps off the road of deterministic parsers,
> one should not count on high speed. (This is a theme in Tomita
> parsers, etc: Trying to make non-deterministic parsers that still are
> fairly efficient.)


Two Eiffel compilers use Earley parsers, and they are reasonably fast
(at least in the parsing stage). I have never looked into these
parsers, so I can't draw any conclusions from this observation.


Regards,
Joachim
[Earley parsers get slow when they're parsing something ambiguous so they
have to carry multiple parses. If your language is mostly unambiguous they
should be OK. It's also my impression that they earned their reputation of
slowness when computers were a lot slower and had far less memory than they
have now. -John]


Post a followup to this message

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