Re: Evaluation of parser generators

I want to make a few furtheer comments on what I wrote earier?
> <snip>
> 3. JAVACC - It appears to be well documented and widely used, but is
> still in a significant state of flux. <snip>


I made that comment because it is still at version 0.7, without more
detailed investigation. Of course the meaning of version number does
vary from programmer to programmer, and I have been told that the
grammar of Javacc, which is the most critical aspect from my point of
view, is not in a significant state of flux.


Also part of what I had written later had been deleted
inadvertently. I had meant to say something like


  Tool size: What are the implications on ease of learning/use? What are the
  implications for portability and robustness?


instead of just
>
> the implication on ease of learning/use? What are the implications for
> portability and robustness?


As to John's comment:


> [If someone wants to make a comparison table, I'd be happy to put it
> on the compilers web site. -John]


I will try to draw up such a table (or rather a set of tables as the
number of aspects of interest are too large to fit on one page) for
the responses I get. However, my inquiry was directed only at a
subset of such tools, i.e., commericial tools were not of interest to
me, or some of the more widely used tools, YACC or Bison. Some of
these questions are also addressed by the Catalog of Compiler
Construction Products and the Catalog of compilers interpreters ...
. Tools for which information would be desirable to others would
include, YACC, Bison, Lex, Flex, Yacc++, Flex++, YOOCC, RDP, FNC, Rie,
...


William B. Clodius




--

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