Re: Java compiler courses

Torben Ęgidius Mogensen wrote:


>>A modular OO approach, as required by Java, IMO is a good starting
>>point for every big project.
>
>
> Modular, yes. OO, maybe. I have yet to see any major benefits OO
> gives you in compiler writing that you can't get through polymorphism
> and ML-style modules. And ML-style datatstructres are (IMO) much
> easier than objects for representing syntax trees etc.
>
> Torben
> [I entirely agree. Data structures and pattern matching are really useful,
> OOP isn't for writing compilers. So I write stuff in perl. -John]


My point of OOP was related to the design phase, in detail in education.
It makes a difference whether a language *allows* for OOP, or *requires*
OOP. When OOP is a requirement, a project must be structured in the
first step, before one can start hacking code ;-)


For the implementation itself, other languages may be more comfortable.
Pattern matching and other tree processing certainly is a criterium for
the choice of a concrete implementation language, for compiler projects.


DoDi

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