On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 17:38, Juancarlo A�ez wrote: > > I originally used JavaCC as a quick way to get an RCS archive parser. But the format >of those archives is so simple that a hand-written parser would be more efficient, >and wouldn't be hard to do. My experience with syntax directed lexical analysis makes >me think that a hand-made parser would be smaller and faster. > > I propose that the dependency on JavaCC be removed from JRCS. It doesn't have to be >done right away, but it should be added to the TODO list. > > +1 > > Points in favor of JavaCC: The current parser works and is very easy to understand.
Even for simple things I really like using JavaCC because it's so well known. I know that a hand parser can be written but even for simple things I just stick with JavaCC. I just wonder if the speed gained would really be worth the added complexity. I leave it to you though because I'm probably not going to be in that package any time soon if at all. > Against JavaCC: The parser cannot be modified without JavaCC, a closed-source >package. Developers need the package and knowledge about it to modify the parser. If >JavaCC goes away, the parser would be pure Java and undertandable and modifyiable by >all. There are ant task to make dealing with JavaCC, and if you really want a fun task I'll work with you on making an open source JavaCC clone :-) Now that would be fun! > Juanco > -- > Ing. Juancarlo A�ez > Modelistica > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.modelistica.com > telef: (412) 222-1160 > (212) 761-5432 > --- -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
