|Re: simple vs complex languages Steve_Lipscombe@amat.com (2003-04-27)|
|Re: simple vs complex languages firstname.lastname@example.org (Ralph P. Boland) (2003-04-27)|
|Re: simple vs complex languages email@example.com (Alex McDonald) (2003-04-27)|
|Re: simple vs complex languages firstname.lastname@example.org (Basile STARYNKEVITCH) (2003-05-05)|
|Re: simple vs complex languages email@example.com (2003-05-05)|
|Re: simple vs complex languages firstname.lastname@example.org (Albert Hofkamp) (2003-05-06)|
|Re: simple vs complex languages Robert@Knighten.org (2003-05-06)|
|Re: simple vs complex languages email@example.com (Scott Moore) (2003-05-06)|
|[37 later articles]|
|From:||"Ralph P. Boland" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||27 Apr 2003 17:10:49 -0400|
|Organization:||University of Waterloo|
|Posted-Date:||27 Apr 2003 17:10:49 EDT|
> 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.
Actually I think that newer programming languages are (mostly) pretty
easy to parse. If its LR(1) (and admittedly some languages are not)
then its pretty easy to parse.
One school of thought is that we first developed syntaxically
complicated languages because we didn't know any better. Then we
developed some good language, theory, understood what we were doing,
and began developing syntaxically much simpler languages.
A different school of thought is that once we developed good ways of
handling simpler syntax we abandoned complicated syntax in favour of
syntax we knew how to handle well.
Assuming the latter is true (and, for the most part, I don't) what are
some examples of programming syntax that we would like to use but
which is viewed as too much trouble to parse?
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.