| ▲ | Lerc 3 days ago | |
I have seen a fair few parser generators over the years, but it has been a long while since I have looked at anything that has been newly developed. What improvements have been made to make them better? The problem domain seems pretty well defined and even 20 years ago the things that were changing felt like polishing off a few rough edges caused by earlier resource constraints. I don't want to be dismissive and say "Why make this?" as a implied suggestion that it shouldn't have been made. Nevertheless, Why make this? I assume there are good reasons for doing this that I am not aware of, what are they? | ||
| ▲ | a2800276 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | |
I get the impression that someone doesn't like Java and used chat gpt to create a one-to-one typescript port. I dislike Java as much as the next guy, but I believe the true value of tools (and this tool in particular) is in the embedded wisdom and experience of their creators/Terrence Parr. Just generating a functionally equivalent port doesn't add much value. That said, that's just a first impression, I have no idea what motivated this fork | ||
| ▲ | __david__ 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |
Their GitHub readme has a section answering this. https://github.com/antlr-ng/antlr-ng#future Basically they feel the main problem with the original antlr is it’s being stifled by its batteries included nature. They’re hoping that splitting it will make each of the runtimes more agile. They don’t mention why the core was rewritten rather than just forking the original. | ||