21–30 of 90 posts
Parsing computer languages is an entirely self-inflicted problem. You can easily design a language so it doesn't require any parsing techniques that were not known and practical in 1965, and it will greatly benefit the readability also.
Parsing computer languages is an entirely self-inflicted problem. You can easily design a language so it doesn't require any parsing techniques that were not known and practical in 1965, and it will greatly benefit the readability also.
Do you mean lisp? If yes I agree
Parsing computer languages is an entirely self-inflicted problem. You can easily design a language so it doesn't require any parsing techniques that were not known and practical in 1965, and it will greatly benefit the readability also.
My brain can do it, why can't my computer?
Double quotes in C code mean begin and end of a string. But strings contain quotes too. And newlines. Etc.
So we got the cumbersome invention of escape codes, and so characters strings in source (itself a character string) are not literally the strings they represent.
Parsing computer languages is an entirely self-inflicted problem. You can easily design a language so it doesn't require any parsing techniques that were not known and practical in 1965, and it will greatly benefit the readability also.
But I don't want to be able to parse only highly restricted languages. I want to be able to parse anything , including natural language or even non-languages like raw audio. My brain can do it, why can't my computer?
Grammar-based parsing for natural language isn't anywhere close to working, sadly, and may never be.
Parsing computer languages is an entirely self-inflicted problem. You can easily design a language so it doesn't require any parsing techniques that were not known and practical in 1965, and it will greatly benefit the readability also.
But I don't want to be able to parse only highly restricted languages. I want to be able to parse anything , including natural language or even non-languages like raw audio. My brain can do it, why can't my computer?
Common example of complications of two grammars being combined: C code and character strings. Double quotes in C code mean begin and end of a string. But strings contain quotes too. And newlines. Etc. So we got the cumbersome invention of escape codes, and so characters strings in source (itself a character string) are not literally the strings they represent.
ugly, yes. problematic? no.
Parsing computer languages is an entirely self-inflicted problem. You can easily design a language so it doesn't require any parsing techniques that were not known and practical in 1965, and it will greatly benefit the readability also.
But I don't want to be able to parse only highly restricted languages. I want to be able to parse anything , including natural language or even non-languages like raw audio. My brain can do it, why can't my computer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But I don't want to be able to parse only highly restricted languages. I want to be able to parse anything , including natural language or even non-languages like raw audio. My brain can do it, why can't my computer?
Your computer can do it, if it has a beefy enough Nvidia card. That's what LLMs are for! Grammar-based parsing for natural language isn't anywhere close to working, sadly, and may never be.
(… I have.)
Parsing computer languages is an entirely self-inflicted problem. You can easily design a language so it doesn't require any parsing techniques that were not known and practical in 1965, and it will greatly benefit the readability also.
But I don't want to be able to parse only highly restricted languages. I want to be able to parse anything , including natural language or even non-languages like raw audio. My brain can do it, why can't my computer?