|Re: Seeking recommendations for a Visual Parser to replace Visual Pars email@example.com (Marcel Satchell) (2008-03-28)|
|Re: LRgen, was Seeking recommendations for a Visual Parser to replace firstname.lastname@example.org (Paul B Mann) (2008-03-31)|
|Popularity of compiler tools, was LRgen email@example.com (2008-04-06)|
|Re: Popularity of compiler tools, was LRgen firstname.lastname@example.org (Jason Evans) (2008-04-07)|
|Re: Popularity of compiler tools, was LRgen TegiriNenashi@gmail.com (Tegiri Nenashi) (2008-04-08)|
|Re: Popularity of compiler tools, was LRgen email@example.com (Walter Banks) (2008-04-11)|
|Re: Popularity of compiler tools, was LRgen DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2008-04-11)|
|Re: Popularity of compiler tools, was LRgen firstname.lastname@example.org (2008-04-11)|
|Re: Popularity of compiler tools, was LRgen TegiriNenashi@gmail.com (Tegiri Nenashi) (2008-04-11)|
|[4 later articles]|
|From:||email@example.com (Anton Ertl)|
|Date:||Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:25:04 GMT|
|Organization:||Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien|
|Posted-Date:||06 Apr 2008 13:30:31 EDT|
"Paul B Mann" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>The current status for LRGen is:
>"Not enough interest. No feedback. No money. Not worth my time".
That seems to be a common problem for compiler tools. I think there
are several reasons for this:
- There are many tools on offer, and not that many compilers being
developed (compared, to, say the relative numbers for compilers and
programs that use them).
- As is usually the case in computing, a few tools get most the
interest/users/feedback/etc. In the compiler front end area these
are yacc/bison, and maybe JavaCC or ANTLR.
- Finally, many compiler writers seem to dislike tools (or maybe none
of the tools are good enough or something).
In particular, while I know of several tools for instruction
selection using tree parsing, none of them seems to be widely-used;
many compilers use hand-written instruction selectors, and of those
where I have heard that they use generated tree-parsing instruction
selectors, the generator was developed or extended in-house.
One explanation I have heard is that the compiler writers don't like
to make themselves dependent on a tool that may go away. OTOH, gcc
reverted from using bison-generated parsers to hand-written ones (at
least for C++ and C), and I very much doubt that the future of bison
was the reason for that.
Maybe some other posters can provide additional insights into the use
or non-use of compiler tools and the reasons for this.
>If anyone has generated more interest in their product by making it
>open source, let me know.
OpenOffice (nee StarOffice) and Mozilla/Firefox are two products that
come to mind. However, they also did a lot of development in addition
to unchaining their software.
If a tool is free software, that would at least be a partial answer to
the fears of the tool going away: if the author or developing company
drops it, the compiler writer can take over maintenance (possibly with
other users), so one would not be worse off than when maintaining an
in-house tool (apart from the transition cost).
>Also let me know how to get money for
>working on open source code.
Work for Red Hat, SuSe/Novell, MySQL AB etc. They probably won't pay
you for working on a product that is uninteresting to their paying
M. Anton Ertl
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.