On 25/01/2013 13:43, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-01-25 13:01, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
If I was going with that approach I likely would rather port the MonoD
parser since it looks just as good, if not better, and C# would be
easier to port to Java than D.
But the descent.compiler experience (parser ported from DMD's parser)
put me off that approach of porting from a parser in another language
(although the VisualD parser might have less shortcomings than using the
DMD parser since at least VisualD's parser is designed for IDE use). I
want to have more control over the parser, and be able to effect my own
changes in it (something tricky if you're porting - unless you give up
the porting at some point, and just fork your own version and use ir
from there)
I didn't say anything about porting :) I was suggesting you integrate
the VisualD parser without porting it. That's why I suggested the one in
VisualD and not the one in Mono-D.
Ah, fair enough. Yes, that could be an approach, although I dread a bit
the thought of having to interface D data to Java through a C API... it
might work though if one is carefull and manages to keep the interfacing
data simple enough (and leave the complex stuff in their own language
realm).
But to be honest, the main reason that keeps me from that approach, is
that I feel I'm far more productive with Java than with D at the moment.
Mostly because not of the language itself, but the excellent IDE
semantic functionality, and debugger functionality, that Java has
available. So yeah, kinda of a bootstrapping problem. :)
--
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
