Re: Why separate Lexical & Parser Generators

"John Lacey" <johnl@cs.indiana.edu>
Wed, 12 Oct 1994 14:09:47 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: Why separate Lexical & Parser Generators morrison@hal.cs.uiuc.edu (1994-10-07)
Re: Why separate Lexical & Parser Generators johnl@cs.indiana.edu (John Lacey) (1994-10-10)
Re: Why separate Lexical & Parser Generators hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (1994-10-10)
Re: Why separate Lexical & Parser Generators wrs@apple.com (Walter Smith) (1994-10-10)
Re: Why separate Lexical & Parser Generators cef@geodesic.com (Charles Fiterman) (1994-10-11)
Re: Why separate Lexical & Parser Generators pardo@cs.washington.edu (1994-10-11)
Re: Why separate Lexical & Parser Generators johnl@cs.indiana.edu (John Lacey) (1994-10-12)
Re: Why separate Lexical & Parser Generators hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (1994-10-14)
Re: Why separate Lexical & Parser Generators adrian@platon.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk (1994-10-21)
Re: Why separate Lexical & Parser Generators hbaker@netcom.com (1994-10-22)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: "John Lacey" <johnl@cs.indiana.edu>
Keywords: parse, design
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
References: 94-10-028 94-10-079
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 14:09:47 GMT

hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman) writes:


> But when doing *research* it is nice to (1) have a
> well-established language with a real compiler etc, and (2)
> still be able to extend the language.


There are languages for just such an occasion. Scheme would do
very nicely indeed, and ML or Common LISP are fine alternatives.
Arguments about the inefficiency of these languages are easy to
find, and these arguments are true to varying, if mostly lesser,
degrees. I would simply suggest that for research, in particular,
your own time is worth more than the machine's.


John L
--

Post a followup to this message

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