2015-03-12 9:46 GMT+01:00 kilon alios <kilon.al...@gmail.com>: > It would be nice to have a parser to rule them all. I am currently using > SmaCC and gets the job done. I really like its condense syntax and its > syntax tool but also love the smalltalky feel of pettit parser. >
> > Maybe one must bite the bullet and write perfomance critical parts in C or > even use a C parsing engine as a back end of pettit parser ? > This would be overkill. Smalltalk is fast enough. >From what Doru was talking about, we should have at least some knowledge on what is slow in PetitParser by ESUG. I saw some things by just profiling it once. My position on that is that PetitParser reliance on PEG is a weakness, especially compared to the current state of competing tools (GLR in SmaCC, LL(*) in ANTLR, Parsing with Derivatives, GLL). And if you combine it with performance problems, then that doesn't look so good. On the other hand, PetitParser has a lot going for it: parser combinators (but PwD and GLL also have that), parser reuse, parsing debug. Now, if you tell me a Pillar based parser in SmaCC, I'd say: easy and fast. With a nice, formal grammar defining/documenting the Pillar as a side benefit, which would make maintaining Pillar parsing very easy for the long term. (and that formal grammar would make writing a PetitParser pillar parser a breeze :)). Thierry
