3 ms·
I got that impression from this sentence of yours: > These tools are a great example of over-complicating and over-theorising programming languages. If progra
by hasbot 7y ago
I got that impression from this sentence of yours:
> These tools are a great example of over-complicating and over-theorising programming languages.
If programming languages are over-complicated, it's not the fault of these tools.
> So why are we trying to use context-free tools?
I no longer keep up with compilers (or languages), but when I was, there was no other tools. Either go through the tedium and effort of hand-rolling a lexer/parser or munge the language grammar to fit.
- chrisseaton 7y agoI see why you'd think that, but I meant over-complicating the implementation of languages, not their design. > there was no other tools I don't think you need tools. Just write your parser as a normal program directly in a general-purpose programming language. I'm not sure that parsing is so special as to require an external DSL.
- hasbot 7y agoNo tool is ever necessary. But not using yacc is tedious, slow, error-prone, uninteresting, and utterly no fun.