[antlr-interest] C# Target Poll

[Johannes Luber]

> I was checking out C5 recently and I found the C5 libraries "non-obvious".
> I prefer something more opaque perhaps when it comes to data structures.

What were your problems exactly?
> 
> Just for reference don't forget all the ones that are hidden in the BCL.
> System.Collections.Generic;
> System.Collections.ObjectModel;	// Collection<>, ObservableCollection<>
> System.Collections.Specialized;

The one in ObjectModel are new to me, but my actual reasoning has been explained already in some other email.
> 
> When I need something I almost always find it in the Wintellect library
> Power Collections (from Jeff Richter et al).  So at least there will be
> good
> documentation.
> http://www.codeplex.com/PowerCollections
> 
> Pair, triple, set, tree, deque ... all missing ones.

I have looked into them already and expressed my opinion in the same email as above.

Johannes
> hth,
> Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: antlr-interest-bounces at antlr.org
> [mailto:antlr-interest-bounces at antlr.org] On Behalf Of Johannes Luber
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 4:27 PM
> To: antlr-interest at antlr.org
> Subject: [antlr-interest] C# Target Poll
> 
> Hi!
> 
> While thinking about future improvements, I came across over the switch of
> the used collections from the .NET versions to the one supplied by C5
> <http://www.itu.dk/research/c5/>. The C5 library has more functionality
> and
> more types of collections than the .NET. Instead replicating text from the
> PDF please read at least the introduction yourself:
> <http://www.itu.dk/research/c5/Release1.1/ITU-TR-2006-76.pdf>
> 
> My motivation to consider C5 is simply that I prefer to use
> state-of-the-art
> tools, and to a certain extent .NET falls short. I have used it in a few
> projects so far and will use it again. It is easy to use. I had no
> problems
> besides non-binary-serializing of a dictionary, which was caused by .NET
> bugs, so I wouldn't hold that against C5. Also, serializing seems to be an
> unusual need for compilers anyway and can be circumvented by own designs
> anyway, as it probably would have been anyway. Please correct if I'm wrong
> and C5 would prevent doing from something what you can do now.
> 
> Still, I can't simply switch the engines as I'd enforce the same change
> for
> all C# target users. As I can see, the use of C5 has the following
> disadvantages:
> 
> -The inclusion of another assembly, thus increasing the application size
> -C5 may be fast, but the .NET classes are speedier as they sacrifice some
> of
> the extended functionality. How much exactly, I don't know, but if you
> care
> about nano-seconds, then C5 might be the wrong choice. Compiler builders
> care about the speed of their software after all.
> 
> Not problematic is:
> 
> -C5 can be used like ANTLR in (non)commercial projects as it uses a
> BSD-like
> license.
> -It can be integrated with .NET classes as it is based on interface
> programming.
> 
> In case, I have overlooked important points, please shout them. I haven't
> done any work to switch to C5 yet, so voting down my suggestion won't
> waste
> any effort from my side.
> 
> Johannes
> -- 
> Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
> Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger

-- 
GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen!
Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/?mc=sv_ext_mf@gmx