From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: State of the compiler market Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 12:29:09 +0100 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <5881b0ca-3a11-442e-88ce-18d0a6142c24@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: BYuA7L7MRjuLLjcoGHOBxw.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:33404 Date: 2017-02-25T12:29:09+01:00 List-Id: On 2017-02-25 11:48, Ingo M. wrote: > As long as there is no complete official BNF available for the Ada > 2012 standard there will be no motivation to develop another compiler. A > few years ago I was seriously interested to develop an Ada/C transpiler > but I realized that it makes no sense with the current state of > scattered documentation. 1. Of course Ada Reference Manual has BNF, it had it since the day one. 2. It is easier to design parser without any generators, so no BNF is even needed. Especially when the rules are too cluttered so that they rather hide the syntax than explain it. 3. Ada parser is the least problem, so minor that there is nothing to talk about. It is a matter of a pair days to work out. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de