Re: Interesting article on ARG work

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On 09/04/2018 05:50, Dan'l Miller wrote:

> I am saying that you are 100% incorrect that only the presence or only the absence of the @-code will be compiled in the most-exemplary implementation, leaving the other uncompiled variant to bit-rot uncompiled for extended periods of time.

I didn't say that. On the contrary all combinations must be compiled 
independently on which parts are presently active or inactive. Just the 
same way a pragma is compiled regardless if the compiler is going to 
ignore it in the end. That is the difference to preprocessing.

   I am saying that you sure appear to be quite ignorant of GLR parsers' 
ability to parse both the presence and absence of the @-code 
••concurrently in the same invocation•• of the compiler in O(n) time

Correct. I don't care about LR etc parsers and consider the whole branch 
of formal grammars with accompanied parsers useless. None of the 
compilers from domain-specific language I developed over years ever used 
that stuff.

If you want to say that your parser could not handle that, I would not 
question that. Maybe. Though I doubt that, but do not care, because see 
above.

I also consider the idea of source code generation in general and from a 
formal grammar in particular incredibly harmful for the software 
development POV. There must be no meta-languages involved except where 
absolutely necessary (e.g. in correctness proofs)

> I am saying that nearly everything that you have said among your multiple replies to Randy's @-code is hogwash and horse-hooey.  Perhaps.  Every.  Word.  Of.  It.

It is easy to be perfect. To be wrong in every word is almost impossible 
(due to the Liar Antinomy). So thanks. (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de