On Jan 17, 2010, at 5:46 PM, graham wideman wrote: > I guess what's playing out here is the usual phenomenon that as > features are gradually built around a core codebase, lessons are > learned, and the legacy core model is more and more divergent from > some ideal core model for supporting the complete suite of > features. So the incremental effort to add new features increases > in some exponential fashion, as each feature has to work around more > and more inconveniences of the legacy model.
Well put. that's where we're at. > So, I think that you would end this sabbatical period a lot more > satisfied if you had completed a revamped enthusiasm-cultivating > core codebase than if you had fixed a few things, duct-taped on a > few new features, but were looking at a struggle for further feature > development. In short, investing your undisturbed attention in the > new core model while you can sets you (and others including grad > students) up to be better able to add > features incrementally after your sabbatical ends. Yeah, that's my kneejerk reaction too. > I do have a couple of questions: > > -- Do you expect the refactoring, or the further developments just > beyond that, to change the ANTLR language in backwards-incompatible > ways, or would we expect only additions to that language? I would expect syntax/semantics to be same. I'm hoping to leave runtime lib as-is. Since it's a major version release, I might contemplate some new stuff. Personally, the lexers still leave me a bit "cold". > -- Might you attempt to absorb into ANTLR language (thus cross- > platform) some features that developers currently perform in > actions, for example building symbol tables? An excellent idea. 'specially now that i have some well laid out patterns to use :) > Thanks again for inviting me into this conversation. you have an excellent perspective. thanks for joining in. Ter _______________________________________________ antlr-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-dev
