Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.ruby > #4657 > unrolled thread

Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation.

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.ruby

Contents

  Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. no.top.post@gmail.com - 2011-05-17 06:27 +0000
    Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-05-17 07:37 -0500
      Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-05-17 07:56 -0500
        Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-05-17 08:07 -0500
    Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2011-05-18 12:10 +1000

#4657 — Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation.

Well it's good to see that there are some adults on THIS group too.

> > IMO the clearest syntax representation ever, was the
> > syntax-diagram format of PASCAL which was used in
> > the 70s.
   
Clifford Heath wrote:
> You can get railroad diagrams from ANTLRworks for any ANTLR
> grammar. However they (and syntax-directed editors in general)
> are much less effective for languages that require significant
> look-ahead.If you manage to make an ANTLR grammar for Ruby,
> I'll be a little amazed (though it's definitely possible)
> and you'll be a hero in here. But it's a massive task.
> The LALR-based grammar for Ruby has many context-sensitive 
> areas which rely on large look-ahead.
> 
OK, IIRC Pascal had 1 char for the tokeniser look-ahead,
and 1 token look-ahead for the parser.

> > Can anybody point me to an on-line minimal formal
> > syntax for ruby, so as to not rely on the chatty tutors.
> > We want a train-time-table format; not a novel.
> No such syntax description exists. Even if it did, a syntax
> directed editor probably wouldn't work very well for Ruby.
> 
Thanks. I'll avoid this potential tar-trap.
The superficial simplicity is deceptive.

I love jazz: how it offers the oportunity for the artist to display
acrobatic complexity. But not for a language/tool that *I* 
have to use to solve my problems.  That's probably why 
Ruby is so popular with the kiddies.

You didn't comment on the virtues or otherwise of 
'alternative syntax': either include brackets for args, or not, 
as you like. I suppose it's so Baroque/jazzy already, that the 
extra complication doesn't add much more opportunity for 
confusion/errors.

Thanks,

== Chris Glur.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#4667

> I love jazz: how it offers the oportunity for the artist to display
> acrobatic complexity. But not for a language/tool that *I* 
> have to use to solve my problems.  That's probably why 
> Ruby is so popular with the kiddies.
> 

It's true that all children love duck-typing, unusual formal grammars
and jazz music,
but LOL!  Those kids have cash now.

CYA!
xoxoxoxoxoxoxo

P.S. OMG UR OLD

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4669

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> wrote:
>
> It's true that all children love duck-typing, unusual formal grammars
> and jazz music,
> but LOL!  Those kids have cash now.
>
> CYA!
> xoxoxoxoxoxoxo
>
> P.S. OMG UR OLD

matz is nice, so we are nice.

-- 
Phillip Gawlowski

Though the folk I have met,
(Ah, how soon!) they forget
When I've moved on to some other place,
There may be one or two,
When I've played and passed through,
Who'll remember my song or my face.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4672

> matz is nice, so we are nice.

Sorry guys, he made me angry with his horrible words.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4712

On 05/17/11 16:27, no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
> OK, IIRC Pascal had 1 char for the tokeniser look-ahead,
> and 1 token look-ahead for the parser.

Yes. Undergraduate project I did in 1979.

> The superficial simplicity is deceptive.

The absence of explicit form (like missing method-call parentheses, for
example) allows the syntax to be used to construct very natural and
fluid DSLs, but opens up significant complexity in parsing.

Personally though, I favour explicit (external) DSLs, which is why I
maintain Treetop.

> That's probably why Ruby is so popular with the kiddies.

It's possible to get treatment for basic sociopathy, such as you exhibit.

FWIW, I've been in the industry for 30 years, and have led teams that
built software products that are still deployed on millions of enterprise
machines around the globe, running corporations with household names.
When I chose to learn Ruby (in 2002), I felt a renewed joy in programming
that I hadn't felt in years.  That was the experience of many here, BTW.
Call it childish if you will, but that's an ignorant point of view, and a
completely gratuitous comment, coming from an outsider.

Clifford Heath.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.ruby

csiph-web