4 ms·

But doing this in C already exists and works well. I don't understand the point of it. Although, in this day and age, rather than use the standard Unix toolset,

But doing this in C already exists and works well. I don't understand the point of it. Although, in this day and age, rather than use the standard Unix toolset, people invent their own tools as if they are new. "Make" versus "npm" for example.

slimsag 11y ago
Do you really think Make could replace npm?
- gopowerranger 11y ago
  Make existed long before npm and make is the basis of all our package management in our company and our operating systems.
sklogic 11y ago
Recursive descent parsing can handle different class of languages from what yacc or bison can do. It is possible to build lexerless parsers this way (so scrap your old useless flex).
- gopowerranger 11y ago
  So your trying to say this thing does a better job?
  - gh02t 11y ago
    I seriously doubt it ever will, but you have to start somewhere. I've used Parsec before and it is certainly nice. Honestly I think it's a bit weird to try and shoehorn it into C, but hey maybe something interesting will come out of it. What bugs me is the suggestion that just because bison works well enough, nobody should try and make a new parser generator in C. They will probably not take over the wold, bison is big and battle tested after all, but bison is itself also a replacement for older tools. And hey, maybe mpc here will succeed and revolutionize parsing for the best; then we can have this discussion again in 20 years about someone attempting to replace it.
    - gopowerranger 11y ago
      What you just said is this new thing isn't as good, and probably never will be, but you imply we should use it, even though the current tools are better. See my complaint? If they are going to introduce a new tool, it must be better than the current tool. It's not and it's worse and not as mature.
      - sklogic 11y ago
        This one may not be that good. But any Packrat-based library is definitely much better than anything Yacc can offer.
        gopowerranger 11y ago
        Said no one who knows what they're talking about.
      - gh02t 11y ago
        I didn't say you should use it, nor would I. Only that it isn't pointless/futile to attempt. No tool will be as mature as bison or what have you until it has also been battle tested for 25+ years, but 25 years ago bison was also new and upcoming. Not to mention that this is not even really a parser generator like bison or yacc... it's a combinator library. It's an entirely different way to write a parser. It's like me saying Python shouldn't exist because I know how to write C.
        gopowerranger 11y ago
        "I didn't say you should use it, nor would I. Only that it isn't pointless/futile to attempt. No tool will be as mature as bison or what have you until it has also been battle tested for 25+ years" Exactly! Exactly what I'm saying!
  - sklogic 11y ago
    It is different, targetting a different set of use cases.

slimsag 11y ago

Do you really think Make could replace npm?

gopowerranger 11y ago
Make existed long before npm and make is the basis of all our package management in our company and our operating systems.

sklogic 11y ago

Recursive descent parsing can handle different class of languages from what yacc or bison can do. It is possible to build lexerless parsers this way (so scrap your old useless flex).

gopowerranger 11y ago
So your trying to say this thing does a better job?
- gh02t 11y ago
  I seriously doubt it ever will, but you have to start somewhere. I've used Parsec before and it is certainly nice. Honestly I think it's a bit weird to try and shoehorn it into C, but hey maybe something interesting will come out of it. What bugs me is the suggestion that just because bison works well enough, nobody should try and make a new parser generator in C. They will probably not take over the wold, bison is big and battle tested after all, but bison is itself also a replacement for older tools. And hey, maybe mpc here will succeed and revolutionize parsing for the best; then we can have this discussion again in 20 years about someone attempting to replace it.
  - gopowerranger 11y ago
    What you just said is this new thing isn't as good, and probably never will be, but you imply we should use it, even though the current tools are better. See my complaint? If they are going to introduce a new tool, it must be better than the current tool. It's not and it's worse and not as mature.
    - sklogic 11y ago
      This one may not be that good. But any Packrat-based library is definitely much better than anything Yacc can offer.
      - gopowerranger 11y ago
        Said no one who knows what they're talking about.
    - gh02t 11y ago
      I didn't say you should use it, nor would I. Only that it isn't pointless/futile to attempt. No tool will be as mature as bison or what have you until it has also been battle tested for 25+ years, but 25 years ago bison was also new and upcoming. Not to mention that this is not even really a parser generator like bison or yacc... it's a combinator library. It's an entirely different way to write a parser. It's like me saying Python shouldn't exist because I know how to write C.
      - gopowerranger 11y ago
        "I didn't say you should use it, nor would I. Only that it isn't pointless/futile to attempt. No tool will be as mature as bison or what have you until it has also been battle tested for 25+ years" Exactly! Exactly what I'm saying!
- sklogic 11y ago
  It is different, targetting a different set of use cases.