Re: simple vs complex languages

Robert wrote


>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.
>...


And our moderator replied


>[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]


I'm with Robert on this one.


If a language is designed with a simple, consistent syntax then it is
not only easier for the compiler to parse, but (more importantly) it
is easier for humans to understand and therefore easier to get
right. Can you guess I like Pascal, which was designed from the outset
for a single pass RDP?


I'm no expert in these matters (then shut-up, they cried), but it
seems to me that to express complex ideas we need a rich vocabulary,
but not a complex syntax. And if not, then why do we do it?


Why make anything needlessly complicated? Just to prove how clever we are?


Human languages are too ambiguous for programming. They only work for
humans because we add redundant information, use context to resolve
ambiguities, or simply make assumptions (which sometimes/often turn
out wrong).


Human languages are complex and ambiguous not because we like them that
way, but because they have evolved from something simple. Like C++ :-)


Finally, if you want to program in a human language, try parsing this old
favourite:


        Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.


Steve

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