On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Thierry Goubier thierry.goubier@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sven,
I'd put RB + SmaCC among the lot. But I consider that really non-trivial : the pattern language of RB (and the underlying pattern matching and unification algorithm) is top notch, and how SmaCC builds on RB to virtually generate code / optimise code / then compile is nothing short of amazing.
SmaCC comes with a pattern matching/unification algorithm over ASTs + auto-generation of AST code + visitor + tree equality + the equivalent of Flex/Bison(*) + a GUI in 11401 lines of code.
SmaCC deserves definitively more advertisements and should be added to MOOSE platform I think.
When I see all the buzz around languages workbenches like Rascal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffx7VtEOSx4
with MOOSE+RB+SmaCC+Reflectivity+GTools we are close to these tools (or even better).
Regards,
Hi Serge,
2016-07-29 14:38 GMT+02:00 Serge Stinckwich serge.stinckwich@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Thierry Goubier thierry.goubier@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sven,
I'd put RB + SmaCC among the lot. But I consider that really non-trivial
:
the pattern language of RB (and the underlying pattern matching and unification algorithm) is top notch, and how SmaCC builds on RB to
virtually
generate code / optimise code / then compile is nothing short of amazing.
SmaCC comes with a pattern matching/unification algorithm over ASTs + auto-generation of AST code + visitor + tree equality + the equivalent of Flex/Bison(*) + a GUI in 11401 lines of code.
SmaCC deserves definitively more advertisements and should be added to MOOSE platform I think.
When I see all the buzz around languages workbenches like Rascal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffx7VtEOSx4
with MOOSE+RB+SmaCC+Reflectivity+GTools we are close to these tools (or even better).
SmaCC requires a bit of effort. It's not trendy in research like PetitParser is, so spending research student time on it (if I had any :() is costly. But for providing tools for business partners, it is very valuable: the parsers are fast and reliable.
Thierry
Regards,
Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
I was at that talk, and I am not convinced that we are at that level, we are certainly not better in my opinion. The advantage that they have is the domain-specific language on top of the parsing infrastructure which makes it easy and fast to write (at least) the demos he is showing. We don’t have that and his talk showed me that it is an important thing that is missing.
-- Does this mail seem too brief? Sorry for that, I don’t mean to be rude! Please see http://emailcharter.org .
Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD and RyCh labs - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
On Jul 29, 2016, at 08:38, Serge Stinckwich serge.stinckwich@gmail.com wrote:
When I see all the buzz around languages workbenches like Rascal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffx7VtEOSx4
with MOOSE+RB+SmaCC+Reflectivity+GTools we are close to these tools (or even better).
Le 29/7/16 à 14:38, Serge Stinckwich a écrit :
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Thierry Goubier thierry.goubier@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sven,
I'd put RB + SmaCC among the lot. But I consider that really non-trivial : the pattern language of RB (and the underlying pattern matching and unification algorithm) is top notch, and how SmaCC builds on RB to virtually generate code / optimise code / then compile is nothing short of amazing.
SmaCC comes with a pattern matching/unification algorithm over ASTs + auto-generation of AST code + visitor + tree equality + the equivalent of Flex/Bison(*) + a GUI in 11401 lines of code.
SmaCC deserves definitively more advertisements and should be added to MOOSE platform I think.
I asked John and he told me that we could use the material of his tutorial to produce docs and chapter. There is a chapter in the PharoInProgress waiting for reviews. I would like to add an example on how to parse tab based language.
When I see all the buzz around languages workbenches like Rascal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffx7VtEOSx4
This is not the same Rascal has a pattern-matching and relationship queries.
with MOOSE+RB+SmaCC+Reflectivity+GTools we are close to these tools (or even better).
Regards,
-
Johan Fabry -
Serge Stinckwich -
stepharo -
Thierry Goubier