1

Topic: Choice

Here asked questions about the spherical commercial code, type that this such and as it looks. Further two links implementing different principles of creation of parcers what of them, according to local audience, is more  to be accepted to the concept standard of "the commercial code". https://github.com/facebook/proxygen/bl … er_cpp.cpp https://github.com/boostorg/spirit/blob … c/real.hpp

2

Re: Choice

1 it is more or less clear, though code . 2 generally it is not clear anything. 1 it is better. And it is better to write  which generates the code similar to 1 variant from a readable format.

3

Re: Choice

Hello, vsb, you wrote: vsb> 1 it is more or less clear, though code . 2 generally it is not clear anything. 1 it is better. And it is better to write  which generates the code similar to 1 variant from a readable format. Yes. In many  Boost generally most  the code which to me should be studied. In source codes of some linguistic data bases from boost, such as boost:: asio or boost:: coroutine, all is well clear, but here Spirit-it a horror example on wings of night. This example only a fragment of a file from Spirit, a catalog tree of this  even more , all is scattered on different back streets and all back streets with identical titles of files and directories as though specially something try to hide, or simply write very carelessly, dumping where it is necessary within a tree. But, probably now there will be fans boost (Nixman), and tell that it and should be.

4

Re: Choice

Hello, smeeld, you wrote: S> Here asked questions about the spherical commercial code, type that this such and as it looks. Further two links implementing different principles of creation of parcers what of them, according to local audience, is more  to be accepted to the concept standard of "the commercial code". Yes any, for a question - silly! There is no such "commercial" code. There are tasks and the whole heap of the parameters influencing the future code. Same "sorting" can be made by 10 different methods (not algorithm!) Depending on requirements. For example: the program is necessary "still yesterday", therefore QUICKLY do any prototype if only the output was correct. Criterion - speed of development, templates and space architecture go wood. The program will be supported by the school teacher, therefore the code should be idle time and even without classes. The program is necessary for embedded, therefore you have two variables and 1 storages - both want, and write. The program is necessary for  on RSDN, therefore stuff there more templates - people love it. Well and what sense at absolutely unknown criteria to compare two  the code?? You, a companion smeeld, how many months in programming?

5

Re: Choice

Hello, Kolesiki, you wrote: K> Yes any, for a question - silly! There is no such "commercial" code. Well, it is pure for a trick, at this forum sometimes there were beginners which asked as "the typical commercial code" looks, type ability to write such code is the requirement for successful employment. But those two examples are interesting still as a distinction example , the first is  C-like, the second is modern a C ++ in which even commas are template classes. What of them more  in 2017? I ask to express.

6

Re: Choice

Hello, smeeld, you wrote: S> Further two links implementing different principles of creation of parcers what of them, according to local audience, is more  to be accepted to the concept standard of "the commercial code". Both variants - an unsupported shit.

7

Re: Choice

Hello, smeeld, you wrote: s> What of them more  in 2017? I ask to express. Both, since they are not interchangeable. To compare warm to the soft it is deprived sense.  on Yandex. A disk

8

Re: Choice

Hello, smeeld, you wrote: S> Here asked questions about the spherical commercial code, type that this such and as it looks. Further two links implementing different principles of creation of parcers what of them, according to local audience, is more  to be accepted to the concept standard of "the commercial code". S> https://github.com/facebook/proxygen/bl … er_cpp.cpp S> https://github.com/boostorg/spirit/blob … c/real.hpp Comparing is incorrect, because the resulted code sample in style of a C is a parcer of the specific protocol, and the code sample in style of the modern C ++ is a universal remedy for creation of the arbitrary parcers. If there is a desire to show fair analog Spirit'a in style of a C it is necessary to take source codes Bison + Flex. P.S. If in we wash the project there was a choice between usage Bison + Flex and Spirit most likely I would prefer last, owing to more convenient API.

9

Re: Choice

Hello, vsb, you wrote: vsb> 1 it is more or less clear, though code . 2 generally it is not clear anything. 1 it is better. And it is better to write  which generates the code similar to 1 variant from a readable format. , here is how time given 2 also is a fragment " which generates the code from a readable format".)))

10

Re: Choice

Hello, smeeld, you wrote: S> at this forum sometimes there were beginners... , and to you what business to them? When they grow professionally, they understand that any code can appear "correct". And to show examples now - only it is even more them to tangle, for criteria "" are unknown. S> but those two examples are interesting still as a distinction example .... What of them more  in 2017? Criteria  do not depend on a year. Above I resulted 4 criteria on which any program can appear awful, though and written on all canons. If to speak about the most minimum criteria, the program should be SUPPORTED that includes simplicity of the code, easy reusage and code loan. This criterion works both for the pro, and for any hobbies-projects.

11

Re: Choice

Hello, alex_public, you wrote: _> Comparing is incorrect, because the resulted code sample in style of a C is a parcer of the specific protocol, and the code sample in style of the modern C ++ is a universal remedy for creation of the arbitrary parcers. If there is a desire to show fair analog Spirit'a in style of a C it is necessary to take source codes Bison + Flex. +1 Bore of modes it: not "source codes Bison + Flex", and  them the code/API and input grammar. _> P.S. If in we wash the project there was a choice between usage Bison + Flex and Spirit most likely I would prefer last, owing to more convenient API.

12

Re: Choice

Hello, smeeld, you wrote: S>... "The commercial code". S> https://github.com/facebook/proxygen/bl … er_cpp.cpp S> https://github.com/boostorg/spirit/blob … c/real.hpp Where here "commerce"? We miss that it generally the incomparable code. The first - "it is fair " the code from a product, on  a case become "almost hardly" the commercial. The second - a part of a part of the monster developed by community.

13

Re: Choice

Hello, Skorodum, you wrote: _>> Comparing is incorrect, because the resulted code sample in style of a C is a parcer of the specific protocol, and the code sample in style of the modern C ++ is a universal remedy for creation of the arbitrary parcers. If there is a desire to show fair analog Spirit'a in style of a C it is necessary to take source codes Bison + Flex. S> +1 S> the Bore of modes it: not "source codes Bison + Flex", and  them a code/API and input grammar. No, just source codes Bison + Flex will be analog of source codes Spirit. The source code (normally some lines), using Spirit will be analog of input grammar. And the generated code/API will be that, here that the compiler uncovers all these templates at compilation of the code using Spirit.

14

Re: Choice

Hello, fin_81, you wrote: _> the Second - a part of a part of the monster developed by community. It, this monster, will be involved in commercial projects  by rates. Now almost all commercial that is written on a C ++, is mandatory contains the code from , the tendency only rises. Truly and reverse, itself boost represents meeting of the operating time made in development of various projects of development of a commercial software.

15

Re: Choice

Hello, smeeld, you wrote: S> It, this monster, will be involved in commercial projects  by rates. Now almost all commercial that is written on a C ++, is mandatory contains the code from , the tendency only rises. Well so it and is logical. If we tell to implement by means of Spirit a parcer from your first example it  would occupy in times of less code, and as much as possible beautiful (in which the separate description of a format is accurately visible).

16

Re: Choice

Hello, alex_public, you wrote: _> Well so it and is logical. If we tell to implement by means of Spirit a parcer from your first example it  would occupy in times of less code, and as much as possible beautiful (in which the separate description of a format is accurately visible). Like hell it will be more productive if to use the standard circuit with tree creation in containers on the basis of rules qi:: grammar, and its subsequent bypass. In the first case parsing passages it is defined on a course of reading of bytes-symbols from the crude text, and on spice achievement it is already known where to go further. If such circuit to implement spirit th the same which only have been written down in other style turns out: the cycle will be not in style while (likely (*ptr! = ' ')) parse_symbol (ptr), and in style lexeme [+char_ [boost:: : bind (&parse_symbol, _1)]-prohibited_char] What of methods is more preferable, in it and there is a question essence in ,  while () {}, or in style of imaginations  , in a type type type type.

17

Re: Choice

Hello, smeeld, you wrote: _>> the Second - a part of a part of the monster developed by community. S> it, this monster, will be involved in commercial projects  by rates. Now almost all commercial that is written on a C ++, is mandatory contains the code from , the tendency only rises. Truly and reverse, itself boost represents meeting of the operating time made in development of various projects of development of a commercial software. I love analogies. Now all commercial, hundred is written on With ++, the operator of a prefix increment is mandatory contains, the tendency only rises. Correctly and reverse, usage of a prefix increment is a consequence , made in development of a commercial software. What output? The prefix increment is a commercial software? The second question, the first listing is an example of a commercial or noncommercial software? In general, what you wanted to tell? .

18

Re: Choice

Hello, fin_81, you wrote: _> in general, what you wanted to tell? . Here the author: smeeld Date: 29.11 13:31

19

Re: Choice

Hello, smeeld, you wrote: S> Hello, fin_81, you wrote: _>> in general, what you wanted to tell? . S> Here the author: smeeld Date: 29.11 13:31 V-zero, where here "commerce"? At first, you compare not comparable, the parcer generator on so-tell tjuring-full language of templates With ++ compare to specific implementation. Secondly, again you compare incomparable, the nonequivalent code so-tell imperative cycle while and so-tell the functional style of metaprogramming on templates. In general, I again .

20

Re: Choice

Hello, fin_81, you wrote: _> V-zero, where here "commerce"? And here it also would like to learn that for "typically commercial" is more comprehensible. _> At first, you compare not comparable, the parcer generator on so-tell tjuring-full language of templates With ++ compare to specific implementation. There, generally speaking, not very well, implementation of what exactly there. Examples of design of the code were resulted, and was asked, what of them is more preferable in 2017 in development on a C ++ in projects of the commercial code (that for the grandma will be on sale). _> Secondly, again you compare incomparable, the nonequivalent code so-tell imperative cycle while and so-tell the functional style of metaprogramming on templates. Here for this purpose also I compare to learn judgement of local audience what of them is more preferable for, see above.

21

Re: Choice

Hello, smeeld, you wrote: _>>... Again you compare the incomparable... S> Here for this purpose also I compare to learn judgement of local audience what of them is more preferable for, see above. Good luck in attempts to compare the incomparable. But it is better to do it in the politician. There the audience is more and likes to compare the incomparable more.

22

Re: Choice

Hello, fin_81, you wrote: _> Good luck in attempts to compare the incomparable. But it is better to do it in the politician. There the audience is more and likes to compare the incomparable more. You again did not understand, it is a question of "choice", instead of about "comparing". That is each of  clearly perfectly, them was not thought to "compare". Here all is simple: at someone the project, whether it is necessary to it to write in  C-like style how in the first variant, or "to describe the world" the parametrized types, how in the first variant?