|Seeking recommendations for a Visual Parser to replace Visual Parse++ email@example.com (2007-12-10)|
|Re: Seeking recommendations for a Visual Parser to replace Visual Pars cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2007-12-11)|
|Re: Seeking recommendations for a Visual Parser to replace Visual Pars DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-12-12)|
|Re: Seeking recommendations for a Visual Parser to replace Visual Pars firstname.lastname@example.org (Tom Copeland) (2007-12-12)|
|Re: Seeking recommendations for a Visual Parser to replace Visual Pars gneuner2/@/comcast.net (George Neuner) (2007-12-13)|
|Re: Seeking recommendations for a Visual Parser to replace Visual Pars cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2007-12-15)|
|Re: Seeking recommendations for a Visual Parser to replace Visual Pars email@example.com (Paul B Mann) (2008-02-14)|
|Re: Seeking recommendations for a Visual Parser to replace Visual Pars firstname.lastname@example.org (Marcel Satchell) (2008-03-28)|
|From:||Chris F Clark <cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com>|
|Date:||Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:39:19 -0500|
|Organization:||The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA|
|References:||07-12-032 07-12-037 07-12-039|
Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> writes:
> Chris F Clark wrote:
>> 1) If you specifically liked the IDE, your best choice is probably
>> grammarforge (aka meta-S) by Quinn Tyler Jackson. I believe Quinn
>> worked with Will Donahue for a while and integrated the VP++ IDE
>> into grammarforge. ...
> The same for TextTransformer, which is fully supported and continuously
> extended. ...
Did you mean by your reply that you have the VP++ IDE in TextTransformer?
That was my reason for recommending GrammarForge so highly in that
context. Not to imply that it isn't worth recommending otherwise--it
is a good tool. And, I'm not trying to suggest the TextTransformer is
not also a good tool. I haven't looked closely enough at it yet, and
even if I did my view would only be my own prejudiced opinion. (If
you wouldn't mind sending me a copy of your documentation, I wouldn't
mind looking more closely. It has stood one of my main criteria, it
doesn't look like a tool that will disappear.)
Moreover, if it actually has the VP++ IDE, then it definitely deserves
consideration if the IDE is the original poster's priority (and the
way I read the posting it seemed it might be). Also, even if it has a
different IDE, it might be worth considering.
However, I was trying to point out the tool that I thought best met
the posters criteria, and since they had previously used VP++ (and
mentioned the visual aspect), using a tool that had the same IDE
seemed like the obvious first recommendation. If TextTransformer uses
the VP++ IDE, I apologize as I wasn't aware of that. If it has a
different IDE, it still may be a great choice, but it didn't meet what
I thought the poster's criteria might be.
The second consideration seemed to be a tool which accepted the same
grammars as VP++, thus a tool which integrates regular expressions and
LR parsing, since that's the language family which VP++ supported.
Not that there's anything wrong with other language families, but if
you have a grammar written in one language family, then switching to a
different one is likely to require you to modify your grammar. Note
that I'm not aware of any tool that meets this criteria and also has
an IDE. In fact, the number of tools that I'm certain that meet the
LR-regular parsing criteria is quite limited.
In any case, I didn't mean to slight TextTransformer, but I didn't
have information that caused me to recommend it. If I was
misinformed, I apologize, both to you and the original requestor.
Chris Clark Internet : email@example.com
Compiler Resources, Inc. Web Site : http://world.std.com/~compres
23 Bailey Rd voice : (508) 435-5016
Berlin, MA 01503 USA fax : (978) 838-0263 (24 hours)
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.