Re: parsing, was .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction

Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
20 Apr 2003 17:36:53 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[4 earlier articles]
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction tbandrow@unitedsoftworks.com (2003-03-16)
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)
Re: parsing, was .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction rpboland@math.uwaterloo.ca (Ralph P. Boland) (2003-04-27)
Re: parsing, was .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction zivca@netvision.net.il (2003-04-27)
Re: parsing, was .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2003-04-27)
Re: simple vs. complex parsers cfc@world.std.com (Chris F Clark) (2003-04-27)
Re: simple vs. complex parsers joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2003-05-05)
[8 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 20 Apr 2003 17:36:53 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: 03-02-125 03-02-147 03-03-043 03-03-061 03-03-103 03-04-006 03-04-028 03-04-046
Keywords: parse, practice
Posted-Date: 20 Apr 2003 17:36:52 EDT

The thing that bothers me about all this fancy parsing technology we
have developed over the past few decades is that it is solving an
artificial problem. If we didn't design our programming languages to
have such doggone complicated syntax, then we would be happy to use
hand-written recursive-descent parsers.


Nobody would use a parser generator to parse Lisp (would they)? Lisp
syntax is *too* simple for my taste, but I don't see why we need
programming language syntax with hundreds of productions.


I suppose parsing research has taught us something about what *makes*
a grammar simple or complicated. But it's fairly obvious that sheer
size has something to do with it.


- Bob
[I don't see why it's artificial. Human languages have very complex
grammars. That's how we're wired to work. Why shouldn't computers
adapt to us for a change? -John]


Post a followup to this message

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