[antlr-interest] To port ANTLR to .NET? (was Re: .Net)
sarkar_soumen
sarkar_soumen at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 8 21:57:15 PDT 2003
I have developed a custom markup language (CML not XML, like
XML) parser on .NET platform. I had no problem choosing ANTLR (a
parser generator written in Java) to generate C# parser.
ANTLR C# runtime source code is included in project's .NET build
to make managed DLLs.
The argument that build environment has Java dependency looks weak
to me specially if there is a strong need to build an automated parser
on .NET platform. I would not worry about porting ANTLR parser
generator from Java to .NET -- I guess there are better things
to improve in ANTLR. ANTLR C# runtime might need change (I recently
proposed on change related to globalization) as ANTLR progresses.
This architecture covers both platform with minimum effort.
Soumen Sarkar.
--- In antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com, Daniel Gackle <gackle at s...>
wrote:
> Mike's comment:
>
> > 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 it
> opens up the possibility of something I've wanted to do for some
time, which
> 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 is
> ugly.)
>
> Micheal's comment:
>
> > All you need is the appropriate runtime library for your chosen
target
> language
>
> ... 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 we
> write and maintain. Our build system would therefore have to run
the parser
> generator as part of the build, and it is a lot easier for me to
convince
> people this is good if it doesn't introduce any new dependencies.
Mike, I'd
> be curious to know if your situation is similar.
>
> Daniel
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list