Related articles |
---|
Best Lexer+Parser+ Compiler(C,C++,Java,Pascal) for W95? meyersx@enteract.com (1997-09-12) |
Re: Best Lexer+Parser+ Compiler(C,C++,Java,Pascal) for W95? sreeni@csc.albany.edu (1997-09-15) |
Re: Best Lexer+Parser+ Compiler(C,C++,Java,Pascal) for W95? thetick@magelang.com (Scott Stanchfield) (1997-09-15) |
Re: Best Lexer+Parser+ Compiler(C,C++,Java,Pascal) for W95? shankar@powertelglobal.com (Shankar Unni) (1997-09-23) |
Re: Best Lexer+Parser+ Compiler(C,C++,Java,Pascal) for W95? WStreett@shell.monmouth.com (1997-09-24) |
From: | Scott Stanchfield <thetick@magelang.com> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 15 Sep 1997 21:24:21 -0400 |
Organization: | MageLang Institute -- http://www.magelang.com |
References: | 97-09-043 |
Keywords: | tools |
I prefer ANTLR 2.0 + Java (or if you require C/C++, PCCTS 1.33)
I actually made this preference long before I joined MageLang, so don't think
it's a company-line thing... ;)
Much of the choice will depend on LALR vs LL preference. I prefer LL for
several reasons I won't go into 'cause I don't have time. Maybe later...
For ANTLR/PCCTS info, look at
http://java.magelang.com/antlr
For some notes I've written on converting LALR to LL, see
http://www.scruz.net/~thetick/lalrtoll.htm
(which should help ease the decision...)
For a good tutorial on PCCTS 1.33 (ring me own bell ;)
http://www.scruz.net/~thetick/parseview
-- Scott
Dennis Meyers wrote:
>
> Application:
>
> The user types into an editor window: variables, parameters, parameter
> constraints, and mathematical formulas. The user then clicks on
> compile = to compile this subroutine module. If all compiles correctly
> he clicks on = run. Run links the compiled subroutine into the main
> program. ...
--
Scott Stanchfield -- http://www.scruz.net/~thetick
Magelang Institute -- http://www.magelang.com
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.