Re: Languages From Hell -- your favorite one could walk again!

sasghm@unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Tue, 27 Sep 1994 14:09:31 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[5 earlier articles]
Re: Languages From Hell -- your favorite one could walk again! esr@netaxs.com (1994-09-21)
Re: Languages From Hell -- your favorite one could walk again! sasghm@unx.sas.com (1994-09-22)
Re: Languages From Hell -- your favorite one could walk again! adam@tucson.princeton.edu (1994-09-26)
Re: Languages From Hell -- your favorite one could walk again! adrian@platon.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk (1994-09-23)
Re: Languages From Hell -- your favorite one could walk again! avg@sprintlink.net (1994-09-25)
Re: Languages From Hell -- your favorite one could walk again! hbaker@netcom.com (1994-09-26)
Re: Languages From Hell -- your favorite one could walk again! sasghm@unx.sas.com (1994-09-27)
Re: Languages From Hell -- your favorite one could walk again! iwm@doc.ic.ac.uk (1994-09-29)
Re: Languages From Hell -- your favorite one could walk again! lwall@netlabs.com (1994-10-04)
Re: Languages From Hell -- your favorite one could walk again! Mike.Stok@meiko.concord.ma.us (1994-10-05)
| List of all articles for this month |

Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.lang.misc
From: sasghm@unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Keywords: parse, design
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
References: 94-09-076 94-09-143
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 14:09:31 GMT

  Gary Merrill <sasghm@unx.sas.com> wrote:
>[suggestions for hideous old languages sought]
>Dare one nominate something like SGML?


adam@tucson.princeton.edu (Adam Justin Thornton) writes:
|> Huh? It's neither all that hideous, nor really obsolete. Unless I miss my
|> guess entirely, HTML is a DTD on top of SGML, isn't it?
|> It's certainly no worse than troff. And I was writing mainframe
|> documentation in a subset of it only last year.


Yeah? Then try to write a parser for it. Or just try to read Goldfarb's
book without getting psychotic and violent. Also, try reading the
comp.text.sgml group -- particularly the recent thread titled "SGML and
its enemies". Pay special attention to the various groups who think that
the language is (a) described by a regular grammar, (b) is LL(1), (c) is
LL(something else), (d) isn't LL(k) for any k, (e) isn't even LR(k) for
any k. I submit that *any* language that is the source of such confusions
among knowledgeable users and compiler writers is a language from hell. I
agree it's not obselete (though do note the mounting sentiment to flush it
and get on with a "second generation" language that at least has a clear
formal description). More's the pity.


--
Gary H. Merrill [Principal Systems Developer, Compiler and Tools Division]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC 27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
--


Post a followup to this message

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