Re: Having trouble finding texts on compiler construction.

Ray Dillinger schrieb:


>> I'm trying to find some good text on compiler construction that don't
>> explain things in terms of visual information (trees etcetera) and
>> maths(which boils down to processing visual information).
>
>
> Boy, math is so utterly fundamental to my comprehension of the subject
> that I can't imagine explaining it without math.
>
> But math is also "Language" rather than "Image", at least as I experience
> it. It took me a few moments to think of why you might experience it as
> image. I'm guessing that you're having trouble with mathematical notation?


A friend of mine has the same or a similar problem as the OP has. He is
excellent in maths, based on strong formal definitions etc., but has
problems with "weak" definitions, like references to graphics. While
most people are happy with e.g. an graph, used to shed some light on the
outcome of an algorithm, some people have no use for such a
representation; they first have to understand the construction of the
graph, what makes the graph redundant, but can not work in the reverse
direction, i.e. cannot deduce the (frequently missing) construction
prescription details from the graph itself.




> Do you have trouble with the mathematical notation being too "visual"
> with respect to operations expressed by the relative locations and sizes
> of terms? If that's the case would rewriting it with some kind of
> text-based linear syntax (as in a programming language) help you?


This might help, but is not easy. It would require a language like
Mathematica, and a translation of all algorithms and formulas into that
language. While Mathematica can translate the "internal" representation
into C code or traditional mathematical notation, I doubt that there
exists a tool for the reverse direction.


DoDi

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