You did not address the actual points i made. >Ragel is still better then a generic programming language for writing parsers, by a long shot. >That said, THIS

You did not address the actual points i made. >Ragel is still better then a generic programming language for writing parsers, by a long shot. >That said, THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HOW TO ACTUALLY WRITE A PARSER ! And, if i can dare to comment on your statement.. >As for simplicity leading to security, this isn't a supported argument. But as for encoding semantic security issues into your program (security issues outside of memory safety), I would argue a strong type system is the right way to go here, something Rust certainly provides. This is, for one, a bastardization of what i stated, that was that a DOMAIN SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IS (usually) BETTER FOR A DOMAIN THAT IT IS SPECIFIC TOO THEN A LANGUAGE THAT IT IS NOT SPECIFIC TO THAT DOMAIN. This is particularly evident in parsing, and to say otherwise is dishonest. As for simplicity being related to security, that should also be self evident. If not from common sense, then from examples of more complex (needlessly complex or otherwise) programs having more faults (on average). >blah blah blah, literally just vapor at this point, not worth addressing. Your post is exactly what a fanboy would write. A post that goes point by point, "bashing" them for being "wrong", "imprecise", or "not strong enough of an argument", all the while ignoring the actual "meat" of the argument (the meat being that A LANGUAGE FOR WRITING PARSERS IS BETTER FOR WRITING PARSERS THEN A GENERIC LANGUAGE). It is the equivalent of "link plz" (meaning "scientific paper of GTFO", as if actually using your own brain is a bad thing). In short, you sir are a fanboy.