> [It] screams "I've never written code outside of an academic context".

SQLite, perhaps the most widely deployed software system, takes this approach.

> The Lemon LALR(1) Parser Generator

> The SQL language parser for SQLite is generated using a code-generator program called "Lemon".

> ...

> Lemon was originally written by D. Richard Hipp (also the creator of SQLite) while he was in graduate school at Duke University between 1987 and 1992.

Here are the grammars, if you're curious.

https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite/blob/master/src/parse.y

▲

mpyne 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

SQLite is kind of cheating here, you won't catching me writing my own source control management system either.

But I do think the wider point is still true, that there can be real benefit to implementing 2 proper layered abstractions rather than implementing 1 broader abstraction where the complexity can span across more of the problem domain.

▲

kerkeslager 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, let me know when you're writing the next SQLite. For your average parser, you're not writing the SQLite parser, you don't have the SQLite parser's problems, and you don't need SQLite's solutions.

▲

lanstin a day ago | parent | next [-]

There is a great Steve Yegge post on how useful ad-hoc transformation of source code is: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/06/rich-programmer-food...

The only time I have used this myself was an expat style transformer for terraform (HCL). We had a lot of terraform and they kept changing the language, so I would build a fixer to make code written for say 0.10 to work with 0.12 and then again for 0.14. It was very fun and let us keep updating to newer terraform versions. Pretty simple language except for distinguishing quoted blocks from non-quoted.

▲

maxbond 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Most people aren't writing something as complex as SQLite, but most people aren't writing parsers either. Those writing parsers are disproportionately writing things like programming languages and language servers that are quite complex.

SQLite isn't some kind of universal template, I'm not saying people should copy it or that recursive descent is a bag choice. But empirically parser generators are used in real production systems. SQLite is unusual in that they also wrote the parser generator, but otherwise is in good company. Postgres uses Bison, for example.

Additionally, I think that Lemon was started as a personal learning project in grad school (as academic a project as it gets) and evolved into a component of what is probably the most widely deployed software system of all time shows this distinction between what is academic and what is practical isn't all that meaningful to begin with. What's academic becomes practical when the circumstances are right. Better to evaluate a technique in the context of your problem than to prematurely bin things into artificial categories.

	▲	kerkeslager a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Those writing parsers are disproportionately writing things like programming languages and language servers that are quite complex. Sure, but adding the complexity of a parser generator doesn't help with that complexity in most cases. [General purpose] programming languages are a quintessential example. Yes, a compiler or an interpreter is a very complex program. But unless your programming language needs to be parsed in multiple languages, you definitely do not need to generate the parser in many languages like SQLite does. That just adds complexity for no reason. You can't just say "it's complex, therefore it needs a parser generator" if adding the parser generator doesn't address the complexity in any way.