[antlr-interest] attempt to compare antlr vs bison/flex performance
Terence Parr
parrt at cs.usfca.edu
Fri Dec 28 09:56:36 PST 2007
On Dec 20, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Minas Hambardzumyan wrote:
> I guess I could compare antlr java parser with the bison version in
> the gcc compiler. I will send an update when I get some results...
>
> One conclusion seams to be obvious though. If the speed is of
> essence, then one has to simplify the grammar definition as close to
> LL(1) as possible.
Just LL(*) or perhaps LL(k). It's the backtracking that is inefficient.
> Doing so though moves the grammar definition away from the simple to
> read EBNF format -- one of the most important advantages of using
> antlr. So it is up to the user to pick -- easy to use/read vs not os
> easy but fast...
The point of LL(*) is to get power w/o forcing unnatural grammars or w/
o deadly performance. 90% of the time, you'll be fine with ANTLR.
Ter
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list