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

[Don Caton]

Ric:

> Some nmake makefiles would be duly appreciated (since I can 
> use those myself with the commandline only free version) If 

I haven't looked at nmake (or any make utility for that matter) in many
years.  I used to use Opus Make, but I probably have forgotten most of the
arcane commands and syntax needed to create a non-trivial make file.
Unfortunately, VC does not have any export-to-makefile feature, to convert
project files to nmake files.

Maybe when I get a chance to come up for air I'll try to figure out
something.  

> easy (or easier) to add new ones. I was able to make a 
> prototype C codegenerator in 2 days, without actually knowing 
> how stringtemplate works.

I was at the antlr seminar, I saw what you did and it was very impressive.
Antlr 3 is too far away though.

Regards,
 
Don Caton
Shoreline Software, Inc.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ric Klaren [mailto:klaren at cs.utwente.nl] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 12:13 PM
> To: antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] Re: build issues: bytecode 
> assembly generation
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 09:51:25PM -0400, Don Caton wrote:
> > Perhaps when I have time to come up for air, I'll package the antlr 
> > stuff up in a Windows installer and submit it to the antlr 
> site, along 
> > with MSVC project files and such.
> 
> Some nmake makefiles would be duly appreciated (since I can 
> use those myself with the commandline only free version) If 
> you get me up to date versions for the project for the 
> current snapshot than I can include them in the distro) (I 
> removed all old files since they were way out of date) And 
> making a static lib from antlr is a nobrainer anyway with a 
> recent MSVC. Only DLL's cause trouble.
> 
> > Regarding Antlr lexers, they do seem a bit sluggish,
> 
> They suck ;) could be a magnitude faster with some serious 
> hacking on them.
> The new antlr3 code will be way *way* better.
> 
> > Which brings me back to my original question of "why Java?" 
> for this 
> > type of thing?
> 
> Ter has this delusion about java ;) So it's java. (for he 
> rest this discussion is pointless) For the generator it's not 
> that bad. As long as the generated code is ok. MINGW fixes 
> the java runtime dependency and the configure build builds a 
> mingw executable nearly out of the box, now only a installer....
> 
> > I suppose for light duty parsing requirements it might be ok, but I 
> > can't imagine that an Antlr-generated Java lexer/parser could ever 
> > approach the speed of a fully optimized C++ one.  I'm 
> rarely in favor 
> > of sacrificing runtime efficiency for programmer convenience.
> 
> AFAIK we'll have C and C++ targets next to java for the 
> codegenerators and with the new string template stuff it's 
> easy (or easier) to add new ones. I was able to make a 
> prototype C codegenerator in 2 days, without actually knowing 
> how stringtemplate works.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ric
> -- 
> -----+++++****************************************************
> *+++++++++
> -----+++++-------
>     ---- Ric Klaren ----- j.klaren at utwente.nl ----- +31 53 
> 4893755  ----
> -----+++++****************************************************
> *+++++++++
> -----+++++-------
>   "I think we better split up."
>   "Good idea. We can do more damage that way."
>   --- Ghostbusters
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 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/