> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:51:29 -0700 > From: Terence Parr <[email protected]> > Subject: [antlr-interest] Review of "Language Implementation Patterns" > ... > http://www.i-programmer.info/bookreviews/20-theory/1097-language-implementation-patterns.html
To me, the reviewer lost his credibility when all he chose to cite as an alternative to ANTLR for DSLs was the kind of Microsoft API that makes its users passive consumers of Microsoft technology. It's not solely about an individual API's or tool's restriction to the Windows environment: it is also the likelihood that the API's or tool's EULA prohibits its use in competition with Microsoft's other products. Imagine the absurdity of Ter licensing ANTLR on terms forbidding its use to create a tool that competed with ANTLR or related software (e.g., ANTLRWorks). In the Microsoft world, those sorts of terms are not an absurdity: they are a reality and, at least for commercial software development, must be investigated before a particular API or tool is used. John R. Grout [email protected] List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest Unsubscribe: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "il-antlr-interest" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.
