Re: What is the future of Compiler technology?

Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org>
19 Jul 2006 14:36:03 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[2 earlier articles]
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? oliver@first.in-berlin.de (Oliver Bandel) (2006-06-20)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? tommy.thorn@gmail.com (Tommy Thorn) (2006-07-05)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? torbenm@app-4.diku.dk (2006-07-06)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? oliver@zeigermann.de (Oliver Zeigermann) (2006-07-16)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? Juergen.Kahrs@vr-web.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=) (2006-07-16)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? eliotm@pacbell.net (Eliot Miranda) (2006-07-19)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org (Colin Paul Gloster) (2006-07-19)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? pocmatos@gmail.com (Paulo Matos) (2006-07-31)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? gdr@integrable-solutions.net (Gabriel Dos Reis) (2006-07-31)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? Juergen.Kahrs@vr-web.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=) (2006-08-03)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? gdr@integrable-solutions.net (Gabriel Dos Reis) (2006-08-04)
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-08-05)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 19 Jul 2006 14:36:03 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 06-06-044 06-06-055 06-07-023
Keywords: parse

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006, Oliver Zeigermann wrote:


"[..]


[..] However, there are quite a number of mini-languages and/or
mini-parsers needed. You would not want to hire a compiler/parser
designer for such a task, but you still want some maintainable code from
your "ordinary" programmer. This requires compiler generators to be
easier to use and understand."


LL(k) compiler generators are easy to use and understand. Maintaining
a hacked together parser by someone who does not understand parsing might
not be easy to use or understand.


" Who *really* understands yacc?


[..]"


People who have studied LALR(k) theory.


John R. Levine wrote:


"[Anyone who's taken a decent undergraduate compiler course should
understand
yacc. [..]"


Is an undergraduate compiler course dealing with LALR(k) and LL(k)
theoretically but whose practical parsing coursework assignments are
exclusively LL(k) not decent?


I was surprised a few years ago at how ignorant senior professionals in
the Association of C & C++ Users were of long established parsing theory.
[If the coverage of LALR parsing isn't good enough to understand how a
yacc parser works, I'd say no, it's not decent. LR parsers just
aren't that complicated, a regex-like state machine and a state
stack. -John]



Post a followup to this message

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