9:41 p.m.
Hi,
John Brant created a repo on SmalltalkHub with the latest version of SmaCC.
And now, SmaCC is part of Moose 6.0.
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com
"Value is always contextual."
10:53 p.m.
Great news !
There was already a Smacc repo on github managed by Thierry:
https://github.com/ThierryGoubier/SmaCC
Some cooperation will happens here in order to avoid duplicate work ?
Regards
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 12 août 2016 à 21:41, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> a
écrit :
Hi,
John Brant created a repo on SmalltalkHub with the latest version of SmaCC.
And now, SmaCC is part of Moose 6.0.
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com
"Value is always contextual."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
10:57 p.m.
I know about the repo of Thierry and I hope that we will see more collaboration around
SmaCC.
Some of the latest changes of John were not available publicly until now, and now he was
kind enough to make them available. I hope this will be considered a good thing, and not
an issue of competition.
Cheers,
Doru
On Aug 12, 2016, at 10:53 PM, serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com wrote:
Great news !
There was already a Smacc repo on github managed by Thierry:
https://github.com/ThierryGoubier/SmaCC
Some cooperation will happens here in order to avoid duplicate work ?
Regards
Envoyé de mon iPhone
> Le 12 août 2016 à 21:41, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> John Brant created a repo on SmalltalkHub with the latest version of SmaCC.
>
> And now, SmaCC is part of Moose 6.0.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> www.feenk.com
>
> "Value is always contextual."
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch
> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com
"Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it cannot be done."
2:32 p.m.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote:
I know about the repo of Thierry and I hope that we will see more
collaboration around SmaCC.
I hope so also.
Some of the latest changes of John were not available publicly until
now, and now he was kind enough to make them available. I hope this will be considered a
good thing, and not an issue of competition.
Thierry add some modifications like the parser generator browser.
Maybe this is nice to share the same issue tracker :
https://github.com/ThierryGoubier/SmaCC/issues
--
Serge Stinckwich
UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC)
Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk
http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/
10:04 p.m.
Thanks Doru.
Just wondering, I always had in mind that PetitParser is a kind of ultimate framework for
parsing. Why would one want to use SmaCC if PetitParser is so robust and popular?
Cheers,
Alexandre
On Aug 12, 2016, at 3:41 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>
wrote:
Hi,
John Brant created a repo on SmalltalkHub with the latest version of SmaCC.
And now, SmaCC is part of Moose 6.0.
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com
"Value is always contextual."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
10:31 p.m.
Hi,
PetitParser is a dynamic parser. SmaCC is a static parser. Both have their usages, and the
static parsers are significantly faster. The speed problem of PetitParser will likely be
significantly improved once we get the work of Jan on compiling parsers.
One thing that SmaCC comes with is an extensive library of parsers and ASTs (e.g.,
JavaScript, Java, Swift) and this is very valuable in the context of Moose.
Cheers,
Doru
On Aug 14, 2016, at 10:04 PM, Alexandre Bergel
<alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
Thanks Doru.
Just wondering, I always had in mind that PetitParser is a kind of ultimate framework for
parsing. Why would one want to use SmaCC if PetitParser is so robust and popular?
Cheers,
Alexandre
> On Aug 12, 2016, at 3:41 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> John Brant created a repo on SmalltalkHub with the latest version of SmaCC.
>
> And now, SmaCC is part of Moose 6.0.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> www.feenk.com
>
> "Value is always contextual."
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch
> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com
"Problem solving efficiency grows with the abstractness level of problem
understanding."
12:02 p.m.
+1
When you have a antrl grammar, smacc is really nice.
Stef
Le 14/8/16 à 22:31, Tudor Girba a écrit :
Hi,
PetitParser is a dynamic parser. SmaCC is a static parser. Both have their usages, and
the static parsers are significantly faster. The speed problem of PetitParser will likely
be significantly improved once we get the work of Jan on compiling parsers.
One thing that SmaCC comes with is an extensive library of parsers and ASTs (e.g.,
JavaScript, Java, Swift) and this is very valuable in the context of Moose.
Cheers,
Doru
> On Aug 14, 2016, at 10:04 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>
wrote:
>
> Thanks Doru.
>
> Just wondering, I always had in mind that PetitParser is a kind of ultimate framework
for parsing. Why would one want to use SmaCC if PetitParser is so robust and popular?
>
> Cheers,
> Alexandre
>
>> On Aug 12, 2016, at 3:41 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> John Brant created a repo on SmalltalkHub with the latest version of SmaCC.
>>
>> And now, SmaCC is part of Moose 6.0.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Doru
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> www.tudorgirba.com
>> www.feenk.com
>>
>> "Value is always contextual."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch
>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
> --
> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch
> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com
"Problem solving efficiency grows with the abstractness level of problem
understanding."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
2:50 p.m.
I did not read this before, but now I’m interested.
Dory, when you say that 'the static parsers are significantly faster’ can you give
some numbers on that? And you know what the numbers are compared to the compiled
petitparsers of Jan and Jan ? (Their compiler is really cool BTW :-) I use it for LRP )
--
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 Aug 19, 2016, at 07:02, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote:
Le 14/8/16 à 22:31, Tudor Girba a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> PetitParser is a dynamic parser. SmaCC is a static parser. Both have their usages,
and the static parsers are significantly faster. The speed problem of PetitParser will
likely be significantly improved once we get the work of Jan on compiling parsers.
3:36 p.m.
On the Smalltalk grammar, SmaCC is two times faster than PetitParser and
Compiled PetitParser is four times faster. RBParser is like four point one
times faster.
The SmaCC parsers are table driven, unless you rewrite SmaCC to produce
top-down parsers, it will not reach the performance of RBParser or the
parser compiled by PetitParser Compiler.
Cheers Jan
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 14:50 Johan Fabry <jfabry(a)dcc.uchile.cl> wrote:
I did not read this before, but now I’m interested.
Dory, when you say that 'the static parsers are significantly faster’ can
you give some numbers on that? And you know what the numbers are compared
to the compiled petitparsers of Jan and Jan ? (Their compiler is really
cool BTW :-) I use it for LRP )
--
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 Aug 19, 2016, at 07:02, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote:
>
> Le 14/8/16 à 22:31, Tudor Girba a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> PetitParser is a dynamic parser. SmaCC is a static parser. Both have
their usages, and the static parsers are significantly faster. The speed
problem of PetitParser will likely be significantly improved once we get
the work of Jan on compiling parsers.
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
4:06 p.m.
Hi Jan,
Le 20/08/2016 à 15:36, Jan Kurš a écrit :
On the Smalltalk grammar, SmaCC is two times faster than PetitParser
and
Compiled PetitParser is four times faster. RBParser is like four point
one times faster.
Impressive results.
Are you also changing the O() characteristics of the PetitParser-based
parsers (i.e. that tendency to have performance/memory behavior based on
the input length and not on the tree depth) ?
The SmaCC parsers are table driven, unless you rewrite SmaCC to
produce
top-down parsers, it will not reach the performance of RBParser or the
parser compiled by PetitParser Compiler.
No. What you have to do with SmaCC is generate(*) a recursive ascent
parser[1] instead of a table-driven parser.
Regards,
Thierry
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_ascent_parser
(*) This is an exercice left to the reader :)
Cheers Jan
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 14:50 Johan Fabry <jfabry(a)dcc.uchile.cl
<mailto:jfabry@dcc.uchile.cl>> wrote:
I did not read this before, but now I’m interested.
Dory, when you say that 'the static parsers are significantly
faster’ can you give some numbers on that? And you know what the
numbers are compared to the compiled petitparsers of Jan and Jan ?
(Their compiler is really cool BTW :-) I use it for LRP )
--
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 Aug 19, 2016, at 07:02, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr
<mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote:
>
> Le 14/8/16 à 22:31, Tudor Girba a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> PetitParser is a dynamic parser. SmaCC is a static parser. Both
have their usages, and the static parsers are significantly faster.
The speed problem of PetitParser will likely be significantly
improved once we get the work of Jan on compiling parsers.
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch <mailto:Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch>
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
5:12 p.m.
Thanks for the numbers, Jan. And they are excellent numbers as well! :-) Congrats on the
compiler, it is simply great !
--
Does this mail seem too brief? Sorry for that, I don’t mean to be rude! Please see
http://emailcharter.org <http://emailcharter.org/> .
Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD and RyCh labs - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
On Aug 20, 2016, at 10:36, Jan Kurš <kurs.jan(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On the Smalltalk grammar, SmaCC is two times faster than PetitParser and Compiled
PetitParser is four times faster. RBParser is like four point one times faster.
The SmaCC parsers are table driven, unless you rewrite SmaCC to produce top-down parsers,
it will not reach the performance of RBParser or the parser compiled by PetitParser
Compiler.
Cheers Jan
12:13 p.m.
I added some details to the webpage for those, who are interested:
http://scg.unibe.ch/research/petitcompiler
@Thierry: Thanks! I am not changing any complexity characteristics. The
speedup is gained by analyzing a grammar and optimizing some parts. E.g.
replacing combinators with a while loop, or using the first-set to choose
the correct branch without backtracking (if possible).
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 5:12 PM Johan Fabry <jfabry(a)dcc.uchile.cl> wrote:
Thanks for the numbers, Jan. And they are excellent numbers as well! :-)
Congrats on the compiler, it is simply great !
--
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 Aug 20, 2016, at 10:36, Jan Kurš <kurs.jan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On the Smalltalk grammar, SmaCC is two times faster than PetitParser and
Compiled PetitParser is four times faster. RBParser is like four point one
times faster.
The SmaCC parsers are table driven, unless you rewrite SmaCC to produce
top-down parsers, it will not reach the performance of RBParser or the
parser compiled by PetitParser Compiler.
Cheers Jan
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
12:45 p.m.
Hi Jan,
Le 21/08/2016 à 12:13, Jan Kurš a écrit :
I added some details to the webpage for those, who are interested:
http://scg.unibe.ch/research/petitcompiler
Thanks.
@Thierry: Thanks! I am not changing any complexity characteristics.
The
speedup is gained by analyzing a grammar and optimizing some parts. E.g.
replacing combinators with a while loop, or using the first-set to
choose the correct branch without backtracking (if possible).
This one (avoiding backtracking) does change the complexity in a good
way (reduces it). A nice optimisation.
Thierry
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 5:12 PM Johan Fabry <jfabry(a)dcc.uchile.cl
<mailto:jfabry@dcc.uchile.cl>> wrote:
Thanks for the numbers, Jan. And they are excellent numbers as well!
:-) Congrats on the compiler, it is simply great !
--
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 Aug 20, 2016, at 10:36, Jan Kurš <kurs.jan(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:kurs.jan@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On the Smalltalk grammar, SmaCC is two times faster than
> PetitParser and Compiled PetitParser is four times faster.
> RBParser is like four point one times faster.
>
> The SmaCC parsers are table driven, unless you rewrite SmaCC to
> produce top-down parsers, it will not reach the performance of
> RBParser or the parser compiled by PetitParser Compiler.
>
> Cheers Jan
>
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch <mailto:Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch>
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
2662
days inactive
2671
days old
12 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Alexandre Bergel -
Jan Kurš -
Johan Fabry -
Serge Stinckwich -
serge.stinckwich＠gmail.com
-
stepharo -
Thierry Goubier -
Tudor Girba