Re: Question about Sun JAVAC

From: Edward G. Nilges (spinoza1111_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/04/04 

Date: 4 Sep 2004 08:49:35 -0700

Programmer Dude <Chris@Sonnack.com> wrote in message news:<peihj0p03crfd1mot6a82opu8viqa96e93@4ax.com>...
> Edward G. Nilges writes:
>
> > This is because regular expressions are a form of machine language
> > that was designed around the limitations of input and output devices
> > circa 1970.
> >
> > What's wrong with symbolic logic?
>
> I suspect you mean BNF? S(ymbolic logic has no facility for pattern
> matching.)

Untrue. Simply quantify over the set of possible strings.

>
> Simply this: I'm not In The Least interested in typing BNF expressions
> when I just want to do simple pattern matching in my editor. REs are

Yes, you cry for simplicity...but every time a "simple" regular
expression is posted to this ng, it seems, it contains an error.

> cryptic, but they are also terse. When I make up several dozens in

Wow, cryptic AND terse. Of course, screw the end user: screw her
capability to actually understand the intent of the expression. She
doesn't count, any more than Colleen Rowley of the FBI "counted" when
she needed Boolean operators to prevent Sep 11.

> the course of an editing session, I appreciate their brevity. Not to
> mention all the power contained in a small space.

All that "power" in such a small space? The hell with transparent
problem solution, gimme power over others.
>
> OTOH, when I'm designing a mini-language or grammar, I use BNF.

Good.

BtW, I do not think that BNF itself can communicate to the end user.
However, it is readily translated to an end-user document.

>
> Each tool has its use, and not every tool is for every fool.

I will assume I am not the fool to whom you refer and I trust you have
learned from our history not to start flame wars. Nonetheless, I am
offended on behalf of end users, including Colleen Rowley of the FBI,
who understand logic but are prevented by this philosophy from getting
the tools they need.

Relevant Pages