[antlr-interest] Re: build issues: bytecode assembly generation

Don Caton dcaton at shorelinesoftware.com
Fri Oct 22 06:55:54 PDT 2004


Michael:

> I suspect because developing in Java is more productive and, 

Ugh.  I've heard this argument raised many times, whether it's from the VB
crowd or the Delphi crowd or whoever.  Whether one language is "more
productive" than any other has far more to do with the skills and experience
of the person using the language in question, rather than the language
itself.  Even given someone who has equal expertise in multiple languages,
declaring one to be more productive than another is still subjective, and of
course, also dependent upon the particular task at hand.

Whether the ANTLR development effort over the years would be been less
productive if C++ was used is questionable.  Ter could be just as proficient
in C++ as he is in Java, and just chose Java for other reasons (which is why
I asked).

True that it would be impractical to post binaries for all platforms, but
given the nature of ANTLR, I would assume that most people interested in
such a tool would have access to a C++ compiler.  It's not uncommon on most
platforms to build your own tools from source code.

> Incidentally, the DFA-as-bytecode generation issue isn't a 
> runtime limitation, it is a *language* limitation

Yes, and that's the reason I raised the issue.  Whenever you have to resort
to a hack in order to work around a fundamental language limitation, that
(IMO) calls into question whether the right language is being used for the
job.  It seems curious that Java has a goto in its runtime but no way to
express that in the language.

Regards,
 
Don Caton
Shoreline Software, Inc.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: micheal_jor [mailto:open.zone at virgin.net] 
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 7:27 AM
> To: antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [antlr-interest] Re: build issues: bytecode assembly 
> generation
> 
> 
> 
> --- In antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com, "Don Caton" 
> <dcaton at s...> wrote:
> > 
> > Terence:
> 
> Well, I'm obviously not Ter but...
> 
> > I haven't been a subscriber to this list for too long, so forgive me
> if this
> > has already been discussed, but...
> > 
> > Why did you write Antlr in Java in the first place, and why are you
> fighting
> > with these issues?
> 
> I suspect because developing in Java is more productive and, 
> Java delivers cross-OS portability more easily than C++ does. 
> Just think about the work that would be involved in simply 
> providing binary builds of the tool [on the website] for all 
> the different platforms that the Java version runs on today.
> 
> > C++ is at least as portable as Java and it has no
> > runtime to impose limitations that get the way of what you 
> need to do.
> 
> Given that C++ has a goto statement, there would indeed be no 
> need to generate assembly but the less productive (compared 
> to Java) development effort over the years would have 
> nullified any advantage this particular difference represents.
> 
> Incidentally, the DFA-as-bytecode generation issue isn't a 
> runtime limitation, it is a *language* limitation - the lack 
> of a goto [any label] statement in Java. Ter's intent is to 
> use the runtime to bypass a limitation in the language.
> 
> > I'm
> > not anti-Java, but I don't see what benefits it brings to the table 
> > over
> > C++, at least not for this kind of programming task.  
> 
> Better productivity, easier cross-OS portability and a lower 
> barrier to entry for prospective contributors.
> 
> Micheal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/antlr-interest/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    antlr-interest-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

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





More information about the antlr-interest mailing list