Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction

Jeff Kenton <JeffKenton@attbi.com>
5 Apr 2003 15:02:43 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[7 earlier articles]
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction david.cornelson@iflibrary.com (David A. Cornelson) (2003-03-14)
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction marcov@toad.stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2003-03-14)
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction tbandrow@unitedsoftworks.com (2003-03-16)
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction tbandrow@unitedsoftworks.com (2003-03-16)
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction lex@cc.gatech.edu (Lex Spoon) (2003-03-17)
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction david.cornelson@iflibrary.com (David A. Cornelson) (2003-03-17)
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction JeffKenton@attbi.com (Jeff Kenton) (2003-04-05)
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2003-04-13)
Re: parsing, was .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction rpboland@math.uwaterloo.ca (Ralph P. Boland) (2003-04-15)
Re: parsing, was .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction cfc@TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2003-04-15)
Re: parsing, was .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2003-04-20)
Re: parsing, was .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2003-04-20)
Re: parsing, was .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2003-04-27)
[13 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Jeff Kenton <JeffKenton@attbi.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 5 Apr 2003 15:02:43 -0500
Organization: AT&T Broadband
References: 03-02-125 03-02-147 03-03-043 03-03-061 03-03-103
Keywords: parse, comment
Posted-Date: 05 Apr 2003 15:02:43 EST

tj bandrowsky wrote:
>
> Well, I'm not a "TRUE" compiler person. A year ago, I started off in
> the same boat as you are now. Parsing is the biggest problem to
> solve, but there are others. ... You should get a rough idea of the
  > difference between LR and LL and ...


Parsing has been adequately solved for many years. All the details
about LL and LR grammars that filled the Dragon book and others are
not where compiler folks spend their time anymore.


It's more important to decide what your data structures need to look
like (parse trees, symbol tables, ...), how you will need to transform
them, what your runtime code and/or environment looks like, what
optimizations you need, ...


Start with a simple recursive descent parser and worry about everything else.
You will learn a lot more about compilers that way.
--
= Jeff Kenton Consulting and software development =
= http://home.attbi.com/~jeffkenton =
[Parsing has indeed been well studied. The main changes in recent years
is that algorithms that used to be considered too slow for production use
aren't any more. -John]

Post a followup to this message

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