[antlr-interest] To port ANTLR to .NET? (was Re: .Net)

[sarkar_soumen]

I have developed a custom markup language (CML not XML, like
XML) parser on .NET platform. I had no problem choosing ANTLR (a
parser generator written in Java) to generate C# parser. 

ANTLR C# runtime source code is included in project's .NET build
to make managed DLLs.

The argument that build environment has Java dependency looks weak
to me specially if there is a strong need to build an automated parser
on .NET platform. I would not worry about porting ANTLR parser
generator from Java to .NET -- I guess there are better things
to improve in ANTLR. ANTLR C# runtime might need change (I recently
proposed on change related to globalization) as ANTLR progresses.
This architecture covers both platform with minimum effort.

Soumen Sarkar.

--- In antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com, Daniel Gackle <gackle at s...> 
wrote:
> Mike's comment:
> 
> > Java is nice, but my tools have to run on .Net or no one is
> > interested in them. Such is my world.
> 
> ... applies to my situation as well. I've been out of the ANTLR 
loop for
> awhile and didn't know about the J# port. It's fortunate for me, 
because it
> opens up the possibility of something I've wanted to do for some 
time, which
> is write an ANTLR grammar for a modeling language that is part of 
the
> product we're building. (Currently the models are written in XML, 
which is
> ugly.)
> 
> Micheal's comment:
> 
> > All you need is the appropriate runtime library for your chosen 
target
> language
> 
> ... is technically correct of course, but the concern in my case is 
more
> political. It would be hard for me to convince my team to introduce 
a
> dependency on Java, even if it were only for generating (not 
running) a
> parser.  It is the grammar (not the generated parser) that would be
> considered our source code, since it's the grammar (not the parser) 
that we
> write and maintain. Our build system would therefore have to run 
the parser
> generator as part of the build, and it is a lot easier for me to 
convince
> people this is good if it doesn't introduce any new dependencies. 
Mike, I'd
> be curious to know if your situation is similar.
> 
> Daniel


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/