Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text?

compilers@is-not-my.name
Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:30:09 -0000

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name (2012-04-17)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? redbrain@gcc.gnu.org (Philip Herron) (2012-04-18)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? cr88192@hotmail.com (BGB) (2012-04-18)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (Alain Ketterlin) (2012-04-18)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? derek@knosof.co.uk (Derek M. Jones) (2012-04-18)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name (2012-04-18)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-04-18)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-04-18)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? usenet@rwaltman.com (Roberto Waltman) (2012-04-18)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? usenet@bitblocks.com (Bakul Shah) (2012-04-18)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? cr88192@hotmail.com (BGB) (2012-04-19)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2012-04-19)
[38 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: compilers@is-not-my.name
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:30:09 -0000
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 12-04-019
Keywords: books
Posted-Date: 18 Apr 2012 16:47:35 EDT

> [Sorry to burst your bubble, but I knew people writing compilers for
> DOS, and they understood parsing theory just fine. Although I agree
> that some compiler texts are more readable than others, the math isn't
> there to be obscure, it's there because understanding how state
> machines and LL and LR work makes writing fast and reliable scanners
> and parsers vastly easier.


I know you have quite a lot of knowledge on the topic so I will take your
word for it. But are you really telling me you learned all the theory before
you ever started a compiler project? I need a way to get started and I can't
seem to understand the math I have seen so far and I have nobody to talk it
over with so I really need something more practical. I realize I won't be an
expert on compiler theory or parsing theory or any other kind of theory but
I cannot believe the principles can't be generalized enough with some basic
non-mathematical explanations to be useful in practice or that if someone
did that the results would have no practical value. Eventually theory has to
be implemented and the implementation doesn't contain all the theory, so
there has to be a way. As we all know, it's not uncommon to implement
algorithms that the programmer doesn't (fully) understand in code, he
depends on scientists, mathematicians etc. to generalize it enough so it can
be implemented usefully. That's what I'm looking for at this point. I'll
take somebody else's word on the theory, I would like to see the data
structures and understand the algorithms from a practical view and accept
the logic behind it is sound.


> As far as the language they use for examples, you have to use something.


Pseudocode would be more readable for me than what I am finding in modern
texts. If you're saying they all use code then I'll revise my request and
ask for a text that uses assembly language rather than C or an HLL.


> If you can find a copy of Holub's "Compiler Design in C", and the errata
> list which is essential due to the incredible number of errors in the
> published edition, you might be able to work your way through that. -John]
Since there are an incredible number of errors is this really a book a guy
like me should be using, even with the errata list? I have no experience
with C and I find it unreadable. I get the big picture with C but not the
important details. Thank you.
[I didn't learn all the theory before I ever started a compiler project, but
the compiler I wrote before I knew any theory was pretty putrid. Don't ask
for details, it was in about 1970 and I don't remember many of them. Holub's
book does require that you understand C, but once you've applied all the errata,
it's not bad and quite practical. -John]



Post a followup to this message

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