[antlr-interest] "An Introduction to ANTLR" presentation slides

[Gerald B. Rosenberg]

At 04:23 PM 3/3/2008, Andy Tripp wrote:
>>Yes, in a snese, it is all smenatcis.  But, in the snese of use in 
>>froaml cmoptuer sceicne dsicuorse, to euqtae 'c' 'a' 't' to "cat" 
>>is srtutcrue, to euqtae 'c' 'a' 't' to "feline" is smenatcis.
>My point was that there's more to "meaning" than semantics...they're 
>not synonymous.
>You say 'c' 'a' 't' to "cat" is "structure" - please, don't 
>introduce new terms in the middle of the conversation. You said before that
>"cat" is "syntax".

And, as I said before, syntax=structure.

>As for "formal computer science discourse", that's not the context 
>here. Clearly, most
>people here are just programmer types. I love Noem Chomsky as much 
>as the next guy, but right now let's
>use Andrew Tanenbaum's terminology :)

Rather ironic that you invoke Andy, an intellectually respected 
professor of computer science, architect of an OS most notable for 
its academic purity and intended precisely for the teaching of the 
formal computer sciences.

Anyway, without any touchstone, your system of terminology is just as 
valid and just as wrong as all others.  And, as Loring pointed out, 
just as useful as arguing down a rabbit hole.

Once we agree to use a touchstone, to establish a grounded system, we 
can begin to evaluate which terminology is more correct, where 
correctness is gauged on conceptual expressiveness.  History -- 
formal computer science discourse -- gives one, though I grant you 
that it inherently bears little weight in determining what should 
necessarily be considered correct going forward.  Still, the evolved 
and refined definitions from the language and computer sciences 
present a very broad, rational and substantive basis for conceptual 
expression.

A system of terminology arising from a casual, subjective 
interpretation of what words mean --where lexers produce meaning, 
meaning is in some way more that just semantics, and syntax is only 
the literal, concrete input elements -- would NEVER work.

Ok, it MIGHT work.

Actually, COULD work and nicely at that, too, since that is probably 
how the existing formal language/computer science definitions began 
some 50 or 100 or more years ago.  Should just take you a good solid 
decade or so to evolve and refine new definitions to a point where we 
can begin gauging relative conceptual expressiveness.

Compelling use cases where the existing, archaic definitions are 
objectively insufficient to express a particularly valued concept 
would be helpful.

Best,
Gerald