Re: OO compiler design ?

trondro@sn.no:
:Hi! I have a book "Building your own compiler with C++" Author: Jim
:Holmes, Prentice Hall. 1995
::[This book came up in discussion a few weeks ago, and the comments then
:said the use of C++ wasn't very good. Anyone else have an opinion? -John]


Those Comments Were By Me (Though Capitalised To Look Like Fortran).
The Main Problem With The C++ In The Book For Me Was That It Was Fairly
Old Fashioned: There Were No Pure Virtuals (Though Reference To Them
Being Available In New Compilers Was), The Use Of Overloading (I Think)
Nonexistent And In Combination With Lex/Yacc I Got The Impression That
Rather Than C++ He Was Using C += 0.5 And That An ADT Style Of C
Programming Would Have Accomplished The Same Goals In A Easier To Read
Way. Perhaps If He Produced A Revision Now (In The Light Of C++ Near
Standardisation) It Would Be Less ADT And More OOD -- Which Would Make
The Book Far More Interesting.


I Also Had The Misfortune To Come Across The Book Shortly After Fraser
And Hanson's Lcc Book (A Portable C Compiler Written In C Using Noweb)
Which Was Imho Much Better Written And Much More Useful. With Their C
Interfaces As Clear And Simple As Holmes' C++ Ones. Prehaps If Holmes
Had Used A Literate Style He'd Have Got His C++ Across More Clearly And
My Opinion Would Be Different.


I'd Be Interested To Know Of Any Opinions Of Wirth's Oberon Book, Which
From A Casual Glance Looks Very Clear. What Does A More Detailed
Examination Reveal?


Stephen
[Didn't see the place in the FAQ where it warns that messages received
entirely in lower case are subject to gratuitous recapitalization, eh? -John]
--

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