4 ms·

As someone who learned parsing in the ‘80s I find Packrat Parsing to be an interesting example of invalidated assumptions. Working memory was on the megabyte s

by jws 7y ago

As someone who learned parsing in the ‘80s I find Packrat Parsing to be an interesting example of invalidated assumptions. Working memory was on the megabyte scale in the mid ‘80s, plus or minus an order of magnitude. Any parsing algorithm which could require memory proportional to input size (like pack rat parsing with memorization) was nothing more than a thought experiment. Slide forward to the 2000’s and Packrat Parsing can be a practical system for some scenarios. Now from the ~2020 perspective; packrat parsing and parsing combinator libraries are trivial to use, possibly consuming uncounted mountains of RAM, but we have 10000 times more RAM in our machines than the ‘80s and it just doesn’t matter if you can prove whether the upper bound memory use of your parsing algorithm is a function of parse tree depth or input length.

vidarh 7y ago
From my perspective the main objection I have with respect to packrat parsing is that it's just not necessary for most common parsing problems. Parser combinators is a completely different issue - parser combinators work just fine on tiny systems. But PEGs for most languages translate trivially into recursive descent parsers with limited lookahead. In most languages where there's a risk of significant backtracking there tends to be relatively simple ways of minimizing it by relatively simple restructuring of the grammer without any reason to resort to packrat parsing. I'm sure there are cases where it's tricky enough that a packrat parser simplifies it substantially, but I just haven't come across any where it's particularly compelling.
- blihp 7y ago
  While you are correct that packrat parsers aren't often strictly necessary, they are nice to have in the sense that you don't need to worry about restructuring/optimizing your grammar. Just write it in the most straightforward way and use it. This is very helpful when prototyping and you are trying out different ideas. You can worry about optimizing it later when you finalize your approach rather than up-front on a parser that will very likely be significantly altered or thrown away. So the argument in favor of packrat parsers can also be a trade-off between execution efficiency and developer productivity rather than simply being necessary.
  - wahern 7y ago
    PEGs are already so simple and easy to use that as a practical matter you don't gain that much from relying on packrat parsing. LPeg, the standard PEG library in Lua, doesn't implement packrat and I don't recall anybody ever complaining about that. In fact, LPeg provides exceptionally useful extensions, like match-time captures, that I think might be incompatible with packrat memoization. Those features make it possible to write grammars for things like ASN.1 BER (with a TLV syntax), which otherwise would be impossible (or at least impractical) for PEGs to parse.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  I used to use PEGs because they possibly compose better than other grammars - it may be the case that you can combine two PEGs and get a PEG that still makes sense. I'm not sure if this is a property of other approaches to parsing.
  - vidarh 7y ago
    That's true,but the point is PEGs translate directly to recursive descent in a very straight forward way, and it is only when you do that blindly with grammars that are structured in quite pathological ways that packrat parsing buys you much. Basically any recursive descent created from a PEG with deep lookahead can usually have the lookahead reduced by recognising any shared prefix to any set of choices first, and then the remainder of the choices. Most of the remaining interesting cases are usually solved by trivial restructuring of the parse tree afterwards. That may not always be enough, but it is enough for most real use-cases. Packrat parsing is appealing because it saves people from thinking about how to structure a PEG in a way that minimize the worst case lookahead, but the effort needed to reduce the lookahead is rarely particularly hard, and most real-life examples I've seen where composing parsers is useful have tended to diverge quickly enough to require very little lookahead.

by jws 7y ago

vidarh 7y ago

From my perspective the main objection I have with respect to packrat parsing is that it's just not necessary for most common parsing problems. Parser combinators is a completely different issue - parser combinators work just fine on tiny systems. But PEGs for most languages translate trivially into recursive descent parsers with limited lookahead. In most languages where there's a risk of significant backtracking there tends to be relatively simple ways of minimizing it by relatively simple restructuring of the grammer without any reason to resort to packrat parsing. I'm sure there are cases where it's tricky enough that a packrat parser simplifies it substantially, but I just haven't come across any where it's particularly compelling.

blihp 7y ago
While you are correct that packrat parsers aren't often strictly necessary, they are nice to have in the sense that you don't need to worry about restructuring/optimizing your grammar. Just write it in the most straightforward way and use it. This is very helpful when prototyping and you are trying out different ideas. You can worry about optimizing it later when you finalize your approach rather than up-front on a parser that will very likely be significantly altered or thrown away. So the argument in favor of packrat parsers can also be a trade-off between execution efficiency and developer productivity rather than simply being necessary.
- wahern 7y ago
  PEGs are already so simple and easy to use that as a practical matter you don't gain that much from relying on packrat parsing. LPeg, the standard PEG library in Lua, doesn't implement packrat and I don't recall anybody ever complaining about that. In fact, LPeg provides exceptionally useful extensions, like match-time captures, that I think might be incompatible with packrat memoization. Those features make it possible to write grammars for things like ASN.1 BER (with a TLV syntax), which otherwise would be impossible (or at least impractical) for PEGs to parse.
chrisseaton 7y ago
I used to use PEGs because they possibly compose better than other grammars - it may be the case that you can combine two PEGs and get a PEG that still makes sense. I'm not sure if this is a property of other approaches to parsing.
- vidarh 7y ago
  That's true,but the point is PEGs translate directly to recursive descent in a very straight forward way, and it is only when you do that blindly with grammars that are structured in quite pathological ways that packrat parsing buys you much. Basically any recursive descent created from a PEG with deep lookahead can usually have the lookahead reduced by recognising any shared prefix to any set of choices first, and then the remainder of the choices. Most of the remaining interesting cases are usually solved by trivial restructuring of the parse tree afterwards. That may not always be enough, but it is enough for most real use-cases. Packrat parsing is appealing because it saves people from thinking about how to structure a PEG in a way that minimize the worst case lookahead, but the effort needed to reduce the lookahead is rarely particularly hard, and most real-life examples I've seen where composing parsers is useful have tended to diverge quickly enough to require very little lookahead.