> I doubt your parser is even close to doing what he is talking about. You act like if someone hasn't architecture-astronauted all their software to meet any h

> I doubt your parser is even close to doing what he is talking about. You act like if someone hasn't architecture-astronauted all their software to meet any hypothetical future requirement, you've won. The truth is, making a parser that can restart incrementally and reuse above-and-below data structures is just another requirement. It shapes the software design and would probably result in a more iterator-oriented approach -- see, we can already imagine how it might be built. It's like you're saying, "Writing a piddly game in BASIC isn't all that, let me show you how hard it is to write this Tetris program." Maybe a better analogy is those people that thought OOP was some deep advanced stuff. And note again parsing is the easiest part of that software, a neat and well-contained problem. See also https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:WalterBright%20parser&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:WalterBright%20parser&sort=... for the opinion of somebody else that knows things about the relative difficulty of parsing.