[antlr-interest] Re: .Net
Mike.Jones at woofumdust.com
Thu Oct 9 08:19:52 PDT 2003
My situation is different. My product has to run with the .Net 1.1
runtime. It has to allow the end user to write .Net assemblies that are
dynamically loaded, but the end user does not have to extend grammars.
So the generation tool can run on java. It is not my developers that are
picky, but that my product uses another product that is based entirely
on .Net, so I can't call their code from Java.
From: Daniel Gackle [mailto:gackle at shaw.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 8:47 PM
To: antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [antlr-interest] Re: .Net
> 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
opens up the possibility of something I've wanted to do for some time,
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
> All you need is the appropriate runtime library for your chosen target
... 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
write and maintain. Our build system would therefore have to run the
generator as part of the build, and it is a lot easier for me to
people this is good if it doesn't introduce any new dependencies. Mike,
be curious to know if your situation is similar.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
More information about the antlr-interest