Re: Popularity of compiler tools, was LRgen

Anton Ertl wrote:

> "Paul B Mann" <paul@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> >The current status for LRGen is:
> >"Not enough interest.  No feedback.  No money.  Not worth my time".
>
> That seems to be a common problem for compiler tools.  I think there
> are several reasons for this:

Besides your list there seems to be some other reasons as well. I own
a compiler company. I just checked a directory that I have ac***ulated
44 different parser generators downloaded over the years. We have
purchased or licensed about a half dozen more (including one from Paul
Mann that works well). We have written 2 or 3 compiler compilers as
well.

The last compiler I implemented was the parser was hand coded from the
grammar.

One holy grail that seems to be missing in compiler tools is a
convenient way to create a simple translator that combines grammar and
code generation where the implimentor doesn't need to get intimately
involved in the implementation details.

Before I get flamed I am aware of many attempts at creating this type
of tool.

Regards,

--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
1 (519) 888-6911
http://www.bytecraft.com
walter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]