Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| is lex useful? kelley@phys.ocean.dal.ca (Dan E. Kelley) (1996-06-21) |
| Re: is lex useful? qjackson@direct.ca (1996-06-23) |
| Re: is lex useful? rkanagy@erols.com (Ronald Kanagy) (1996-06-23) |
| Re: is lex useful? qjackson@direct.ca (1996-06-24) |
| Re: is lex useful? kelley@Phys.Ocean.Dal.Ca (1996-06-24) |
| Re: is lex useful? Scott.Nicol@infoadvan.com (1996-06-24) |
| Re: is lex useful? kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de (1996-06-24) |
| Re: is lex useful? bos@serpentine.com (1996-06-26) |
| Re: is lex useful? dhami@mdd.comm.mot.com (1996-06-26) |
| [20 later articles] |
| From: | Ronald Kanagy <rkanagy@erols.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 23 Jun 1996 23:24:53 -0400 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 96-06-073 |
| Keywords: | lex, performance |
At 05:07 PM 6/21/96 -0400, you wrote:
>[if lex is so swell, why doesn't anyone use it?]
Lex is good in situations where a language is still being designed and a
scanner is to be quickly built. But, in production compilers, after the
language has be designed and stable, lex scanners tend to be too slow
compared to hand-coded scanners and is unacceptable. Therefore, one would
normally find hand-coded scanners in these situations.
[Has anyone actually timed a flex scanner vs. a hand-coded one? -John]
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.