Marc Olschok <nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> Aleksej Saushev <asau@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Bruce McFarling <agila61@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>
>> > On Apr 30, 5:14 pm, Richard Owlett <rowl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> What do they have in common?
>> >> Someone else has compiled raw data. It's available in ASCII format.
>> >> That requires me to parse it.
>> >> I doubt anyone would claim string handling as a Forth forte.
>> >
>> > However, parsing data in ASCII format *is* a Forth forte.
>>
>> But the world is not ASCII, and this brings Forth to failure.
>
> Perhaps the word "контексте" might be worth noting.
I doubt it, even in the context of ASCII Forth isn't good at parsing,
regular language isn't a problem, but even for that language you have
to hardcode your parser, instead of reusing regular expressions.
(Even Delphi programmers do it!)
When it comes to more complex grammars, I start being afraid,
that Forth BNF parsers are too unusable even for hardcore
Forth hacker. The famous one-screener is purely conceptual ("toy"),
I don't remember, if I have ever seen any example of its usage,
as for others, I don't remember sample code for it either.
To be successful in any field there should be documentation and
sample code, or at least the very little sing of code usage.
I don't observe any. I may be wrong here, since it's been quite
a long time since I checked, but I'm not optimistic.
Maybe, if anyone could point to documentation and sample code
for BNF parser, I could try using it again, though I'm not that
optimistic.
>> > Then add on top the lack of a de facto library management standard,
>> > and on top of that the fact that for those who only need to do a
>> > specific, people with a distinct set of concrete string tasks can
>> > solve it from scratch with tools like those in TOOL2002. If that is
>> > auxiliary to their main task, then once its solved, they may rarely
>> > need to revisit it. So instead of investing the time and effort into
>> > learning and importing a general purpose string handling toolkit and
>> > than using 5% of it, they build a much simpler special purpose string
>> > handling toolkit and use 100% of it.
>>
>> And thus reinventing the same wheel 100 times, instead of reusing
>> the library written once years ago.
>
> Well, what if it is another wheel each time?
It is even worse. Dealing with a dozen of non-standard kinds of
screws is a nightmare, it causes only one and the single wish:
to cram all these screws up those engineers' asses.
The same is appicable to software developers, that suppose the world
is Mac or the world is (Debian) Linux, and ship bundled Boehm GC or
libtool, without any thought about their correctness or portability.
Claiming after that, that their package works (and works correctly!)
on any BSD and even Solaris.
--
BECHA...
CKOPO CE3OH...
|
