tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8875558920754897232.post3447916128261530017..comments2022-10-25T06:09:25.930-07:00Comments on Programmatically Speaking: Fear and Loathing in Parse VegasTorgnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12146418455302215748noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8875558920754897232.post-23729091257527078432008-08-05T13:17:00.000-07:002008-08-05T13:17:00.000-07:00In my case I didn't have the freedom of choosing t...In my case I didn't have the freedom of choosing the syntax.Torgnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12146418455302215748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8875558920754897232.post-1304823049107063552008-08-05T13:15:00.000-07:002008-08-05T13:15:00.000-07:00Sure, I agree.However, if you don't have the freed...Sure, I agree.<BR/>However, if you don't have the freedom of choosing the syntax of the DSL, then there is not much you can do other than writing a parser. Also, if can't choose the(implementation) language, then you may be stuck with C#, Java, or whatever.Torgnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12146418455302215748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8875558920754897232.post-58804938418769124442008-08-05T05:05:00.000-07:002008-08-05T05:05:00.000-07:00But generally speaking, if you're operating at the...But generally speaking, if you're operating at the level of abstraction where you're writing a DSL, why wouldn't you be working in a language that makes an embedded DSL an easy natural fit?<BR/><BR/>I don't think parsing complex DSLs is really the way to go.GMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07637024036051297719noreply@blogger.com