Irony.NET
-
Is there an aluminumy.net, or a steely.net?
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Is there an aluminumy.net, or a steely.net?
Not.YET .
-
He lost me at: "Unlike most existing yacc/lex-style solutions Irony does not employ any scanner or parser code generation from grammar specifications written in proprietary meta-language. " What?!? Since when is the BNF/EBNF form used by yacc/lex and variants "proprietary"? What he's describing smells a lot like Spirit[^] And finally it's a stupid name. "Irony"? Please, puhhhlease give your project some meaningful name, not just random nouns/verbs/adjectives etc. Gahhh! So once I can get past all that, I guess I might be interested in it, I suppose.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
Jim Crafton wrote:
He lost me at: "Unlike most existing yacc/lex-style solutions Irony does not employ any scanner or parser code generation from grammar specifications written in proprietary meta-language. " What?!? Since when is the BNF/EBNF form used by yacc/lex and variants "proprietary"?
Allow me to translate for you: "We find it too difficult to parse BNF into C#, so rather than generate the code for you, you have to do it yourself." That's where the Irony comes in. They built a parser, but can't parse BNF themselves.
-
No, not Pete's newest invention (that's Sarcasm.NET, which supersedes CausticRetort.NET), but Irony.NET[^] has anybody used it? If so, what do you think?
It seems like a modern version of Spirit, the Boost library's C++ compiler builder. It used overloading and templates to allow you to write code that looked a lot like a standard grammar. There were classes or objects available to control the parsing. So, at first glance, the opening paragraph makes me think this is Spirit#. I still think GoldBuilder is one of the best language definers, as all I have to write is an LALR engine supporting the file format.
-
What next ? Ironing.NET ? Your code is as flat as possible.
Maximilien Lincourt Your Head A Splode - Strong Bad
I like Krypto.Net - especially good at hiding information, and the bugs :)
-
No, not Pete's newest invention (that's Sarcasm.NET, which supersedes CausticRetort.NET), but Irony.NET[^] has anybody used it? If so, what do you think?
I'm currently writing a (GW) BASIC-to-JavaScript compiler using Irony.NET (CodeProject article coming soon). I think Irony.NET is a brilliant project as it allows you to write an interpreter without really needing to do any scanner/parsing implementation, and just having everything in .NET code makes it seem so much more convenient than using, say, LEX or something. It's a little scant on documentation though.
-
He lost me at: "Unlike most existing yacc/lex-style solutions Irony does not employ any scanner or parser code generation from grammar specifications written in proprietary meta-language. " What?!? Since when is the BNF/EBNF form used by yacc/lex and variants "proprietary"? What he's describing smells a lot like Spirit[^] And finally it's a stupid name. "Irony"? Please, puhhhlease give your project some meaningful name, not just random nouns/verbs/adjectives etc. Gahhh! So once I can get past all that, I guess I might be interested in it, I suppose.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
They changed the word "proprietary" to "specialized" on the day you posted the critics. Now it is even more grand: looks like Irony.NET introduces a new non-"Specialized" grammar meta-language. I think what happends is that the guys write a tool for certain code generation, like many people do for various reasons. They publish its source - it's a useful tool, and some people may like it. But it's not enough: they want to place some foundation, add some claim for theoretical break-through. And in doing so, they fully adopt Microsoft approach: claim it's open standard, universal, generic, etc. In reality, 1) it is .NET specific - would you want to write a Java parser for what they call an "expression grammar"??? 2) it is not documented - they have samples, but what is a grammar of their grammar? Will it start with "using System;" literal ?? So... do not take it serious. It's just another tool.
