Related articles |
---|
Techniques for writing an interpreter simon@magnorth.nildram.co.uk (Simon Chapman) (1998-03-06) |
Re: Techniques for writing an interpreter Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com (Nick Roberts) (1998-03-08) |
Re: Techniques for writing an interpreter adrian@dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk (1998-03-12) |
Re: Techniques for writing an interpreter ct7@mitre.org (W. Craig Trader) (1998-03-15) |
Re: Techniques for writing an interpreter fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (1998-03-15) |
Re: Techniques for writing an interpreter psu@jprc.com (Peter Su) (1998-03-18) |
Re: Techniques for writing an interpreter hgg9140@heckle.ca.boeing.com (1998-03-18) |
Re: Techniques for writing an interpreter henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (1998-03-18) |
Re: Techniques for writing an interpreter dhansen@btree.com (1998-03-18) |
Re: Techniques for writing an interpreter dent@cs.tu-berlin.de (Pierre Mai) (1998-03-18) |
Re: Techniques for writing an interpreter markh@usai.asiainfo.com (Mark Harrison) (1998-03-20) |
Re: Techniques for writing an interpreter a010111t@bc.seflin.org (Orlando Llanes) (1998-03-20) |
[4 later articles] |
From: | Peter Su <psu@jprc.com> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 18 Mar 1998 22:44:11 -0500 |
Organization: | Justsystem Pittsburgh Research Center |
References: | 98-03-032 98-03-098 98-03-141 98-03-147 |
Keywords: | interpreter, design |
fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) writes:
> Yes. One reason is that Y-A-E-L is likely to be a much worse language
> than Python or TCL. Often extension languages have needlessly cryptic
> syntax (e.g. procmail), and/or are missing lots of crucial features
> (e.g. the elm filter language).
I can't speak for python, but its hard for me to imagine an extension
language, or any language worse than tcl, short of the original 1-2-3
macro language.
That said, good ext. languages have been done before, and are widely
available. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel here.
Pete
[Never tried Trac, I see. -John]
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.