Randall R Schulz wrote: > On Thursday 24 April 2008 21:01, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > >> Randall R Schulz wrote: >> >>> On Thursday 24 April 2008 19:47, Jim White wrote: >>> ... >>> >>> >>>> ... And not being JVM-specific >>>> (although that is it's "native" platform) hardly seems like a bad >>>> thing... >>>> >>> It wasn't a value judgment, but a reaction to the fact that it was >>> listed in response to a request for JVM-specific languages. While >>> the ANTLR processor itself runs in the JVM, it is agnostic as to >>> the language of the code it generates. >>> >> It wasn't a request for JVM-specific languages...just JVM languages. >> In other words, F# might be great, Boo may be awesome, but they're >> not really on-topic for my talk. But Python, Ruby...perfect example >> cases. >> > > Well, I'm not sure exactly what distinction you're drawing, but ANTLR is > neither a JVM language nor a programming language in any but a very > narrow and specialized sense. It does define a language with which you > communicate your specifications to it, but that's essentially true of > all computer programs that accept input. > Well. It's not even close to being turing complete in that aspect of it, so I would call Antlr's grammar specifications a data definition language, but not a programming language.
-- Ola Bini (http://ola-bini.blogspot.com) JRuby Core Developer Developer, ThoughtWorks Studios (http://studios.thoughtworks.com) Practical JRuby on Rails (http://apress.com/book/view/9781590598818) "Yields falsehood when quined" yields falsehood when quined. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" 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/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
