3 ms·
Quoting [3]: "I’m going to make a claim here that will be unpopular with some compiler and language people. It’s OK if you don’t agree. Personally, I learn mor
by _a_a_a_ 3y ago
Quoting [3]:
"I’m going to make a claim here that will be unpopular with some compiler and language people. It’s OK if you don’t agree. Personally, I learn more from strongly stated opinions that I disagree with than I do from several pages of qualifiers and equivocation. My claim is that parsing doesn’t matter."
agreed 100%
- naasking 3y agoParsing matters for tooling, and that's about it. The recent Go retrospective on this goes into this somewhat, but if you have a reusable parser then you or others can easily create linters, formatters, and static analysis tools for your language, which really fleshes out the ecosystem.
- kerkeslager 3y agoI'd say that Nystrom's point in context is more "How you parse doesn't matter." He says, later in that link: "Recursive descent, Pratt parsing, and the popular parser generators like ANTLR or Bison are all fine." Any of these can be reusable parsers that you and/or others can easily use to create tools.