[antlr-interest] Re: Local lookahead depth

[John D. Mitchell]

>>>>> "Oliver" == Oliver Zeigermann <oliver at zeigermann.de> writes:
>>>>>> John D. Mitchell writes:
>>>>>>> "Oliver" == Oliver Zeigermann <oliver at zeigermann.de> writes:
[...]

>>> are you really serious about this? Have a look at the DOM vs. SAX
>>> discussion in the XML area...

>> The fundamental question there is simply "do you need all of the
>> complexity of a full 'DOM' approach or is a syntax-directed translation
>> all that you need?"  I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say
>> that all of the rest of those whacked out discussions boil down to
>> "premature optimization".

> What's your point here?

You made a side comment about the whole war of the tree-based
vs. syntax-directed translation approaches (as exhibited by the war in the
XML community about DOM vs. SAX) having to do with performance (in reply to
a comment from Loring).

I'm saying that people involved in that XML DOM vs. SAX war are missing the
only truly *necessary* language question: Do they need the extra power that
is available via a DOM approach?  If no then they can take the SAX approach
and get various benefits in terms of e.g., speed.  If yes then they need to
use a DOM (or use/create one of the myriad hacks on top of a SAX approach
which simulates various parts of a DOM approach, etc.).

It goes without saying that this war of the tree-based vs. syntax-direct
approaches have absolutely no bearing in the world of translator generators
that you and I live in. :-? :-)


>> It cracks me up how many people learn "XML" and think themselves
>> language and/or parsing experts.

> This is certainly off topic...

Ah, sorry for the lack of explicit context.  To be clear, my comment is
strictly about those XML folks involved in that DOM vs. SAX war.  I
apologize for any confusion caused thereby.

Take care,
	John

 

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