Re: Why context-free?

Darius Blasband <>
13 Oct 2005 20:40:14 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[10 earlier articles]
Re: Why context-free? (Robert Figura) (2005-10-10)
Re: Why context-free? (Ivan Boldyrev) (2005-10-10)
Re: Why context-free? (Tony Finch) (2005-10-13)
Re: Why context-free? (2005-10-13)
Re: Why context-free? (Chris F Clark) (2005-10-13)
Re: Why context-free? (Neelakantan Krishnaswami) (2005-10-13)
Re: Why context-free? (Darius Blasband) (2005-10-13)
Re: Why context-free? (2005-10-14)
Re: language syntax design, was Why context-free? (2005-10-14)
Re: Why context-free? (Darius Blasband) (2005-10-19)
Re: Why context-free? (2005-10-19)
Re: Why context-free? (2005-10-19)
Re: Why context-free? (2005-10-20)
[11 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Darius Blasband <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 13 Oct 2005 20:40:14 -0400
Organization: [ posted via Easynet Belgium ]
References: 05-10-053 05-10-061
Keywords: parse, design, comment
Posted-Date: 13 Oct 2005 20:40:14 EDT

> Sorry, but I'm not impressed with Perl.
> - Bob
> [...
> Perl's syntax is gross, but it's the most productive language I've
> ever used, partly because of its nice complete garbage collected type
> system, partly because of the vast set of application libraries
> available. -John]

Shouldn't the question be whether it would have been possible to design
a language as productive as Perl, perhaps with a similar syntax in many
areas, but which would have been CF or even LL1 ?

We all know that some languages are not LL or not CF, but is there an
example, a feature that makes Perl special that actually *depends* on
the fact that it is or isn't CF, or LL ? I can't think of one, but I'd
be glad to be shown wrong in this matter.

[Python has a much cleaner syntax than perl, but never got perl's critical
mass. I think this tells us that syntactic elegance isn't a big issue for
language users. -John]

Post a followup to this message

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