Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • That's a really nice view. All in all is just another of the many methods programmers try to use to facilitate their operations and focus on a higher level of coding, instead of syntax code details. Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 13:01
  • 1
    @Jose Faeti The wikipedia article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_programming has links to various different tools, if your interested in some more details. I'd also suggest reading up on lex and yacc, as there is quite a bit more documentation and description for those. Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 13:24
  • In sufficiently powerful languages (e.g. C++ as opposed to C), external tools like lex and yacc are unnecessary. Commented Dec 5, 2011 at 4:11
  • 1
    YACC doesn't write "any kind of parser". It writes one specific kind of parser (LALR) which is very difficult to get right without automated help. There's another type of parser (recursive descent) which is much easier to write and get right, and correspondingly easier to read and understand what's going on. Commented Aug 10, 2012 at 18:39
  • @MasonWheeler The kind of parser was referring to the grammars that can be created for solving problems, in a broad, non-exact sense. Reading it a year later, it isn't as clear as I would have liked. I'm not sure I agree with you on LL(*) parsers being easier to write and use, though. Commented Aug 10, 2012 at 18:59