Re: C++ intermediate representation.

> (Stroustrup states recently that "today, most production C++
> compilers have hard-coded recursive descent parsers. Note that part
> of the reason for that is compactness, speed, and quality of error
> messages." [Stroustrup 2003])


I tend to think the goal of parser generator tools is to be so
effective that all parsers (except perhaps trivial ones) be built
using parser generator tools. This means they need to achieve a level
of "compactness, speed, and quality of error messages" amoung other
things that is competive with hand written parsers if not better.


In the case of C++ we appear to be behind.


How far behind are we?


How far behind are we for other common languages?


What are the most important areas for parser generator tools to
improve upon first?


By the way, I am writing my own parser generator tool but I am
focusing on ease of use since the parser generator tools I have seen
are unnecesarily complex to use and are almost hopeless when it comes
to debugging grammars.


Building good utilities for effective debugging of grammars is not
overly difficult so why such a poor job is done in this area is beyond
me.


Ralph Boland

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.