From: Mushfeq Khan <mushfeq.khan@...>
Date: 2007-05-21T02:26:54+09:00
Subject: Re: Parser or Programmer? (was: Re: Why not adopt "Python Style" indentation for Ruby?)

------=_Part_47658_14186331.1179682013361
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

I can think of an argument for making a parser simpler at the expense of
programmer convenience, and that's the maintainability and portability of
the implementation. Some weighing of costs seems to be necessary here - for
example, by hacking that extra programmer convenience syntax into the
language, you might lose the ability to represent the language grammar
simply and portably. Implementing a parser for Ruby, for example, is
difficult, because there's no grammar that you can just plug right into a
parser and lexer generator. I've read accounts by people attempting to
implement Ruby interpreters where parsing seems to have been a major
stumbling block. There could be situations where that extra syntax might
just not be worth it.

Mushfeq.


On 5/20/07, Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> On 19.05.2007 20:48, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>
> > 2. I think Python's "variant" of Algol 60 notation is less than
> > satisfactory, but I also have problems with the liberality present in
> > the syntax of Perl and Ruby. I don't like to make the reader or parser
> > work any harder than necessary just for the convenience of the coder.
>
> I would understand why you would want to make the reader's job easier -
> but the parser?  That's just a piece of software and I believe that we
> should always strive to make software easier to use for humans not
> machines.
>
> Besides of that, personally I don't find the current Ruby syntax hard to
> read.  Do you have some examples where you feel that reading Ruby is
> made hard(er) because of the liberties you mention?
>
> Kind regards
>
>         robert
>
>
>

------=_Part_47658_14186331.1179682013361--