Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C)

anton@complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
27 Feb 1996 16:29:46 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[6 earlier articles]
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) gasser@ilw.agrl.ethz.ch (Laurent GASSER) (1996-02-23)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) fabre@gr.osf.org (Christian Fabre) (1996-02-23)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) WStreett@shell.monmouth.com (1996-02-23)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) hbaker@netcom.com (1996-02-23)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) k2consult@aol.com (1996-02-26)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (1996-02-27)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) anton@complang.tuwien.ac.at (1996-02-27)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) blume@zayin.cs.princeton.edu (1996-02-27)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) przemek@rrdjazz.nist.gov (1996-03-01)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1996-03-01)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1996-03-01)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (1996-03-01)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) WStreett@shell.monmouth.com (1996-03-03)
[6 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: anton@complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 27 Feb 1996 16:29:46 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
Keywords: standards

Dave Lloyd <dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk> writes:
|> Well we started down this path with ALGOL 60 which gave us all BNF.


BNF is a good example why formal specifications do not save us from
complexity, on the contrary. BNF allows us to specify complex
grammars easily. We would create languages with simpler syntaxes if we
had to specify it in natural language.


- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
--

Post a followup to this message

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