Re: question about linker

On 04/12/2024 22:31, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

On 04/12/2024 19:23, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 04.12.2024 18:43, Bart wrote:

[...]

>
Do you use a formal grammar when parsing a CSV file, or something
equally trivial?

>
Is that the reason why there's so many versions around that are
incompatible? CSV-parsing is not "trivial" if you look into the
details; you have to specify these (at first glance not obvious
details) to be sure that your "CSV-data" works not only with your
"CSV-parser" but that there's a common understanding of the CSV-
"language". (It's only few details; delimiters in string values,
escapes, and such, but enough to initiate incompatible formats.)
Yes, of course; if there would have been a formal specification
in the first place we wouldn't have the mess we now actually have.
>
And if you anyway write your tools only for yourself, and if you
don't intend to exchange data with others, no one cares what you
think a/the "CSV-format" actually is.
>
But we weren't discussing such comparably simple structures; we
have been discussing programming languages (and their grammars).
And most of us are considering sensible languages, not privately
hacked up toy languages or implementations of personal hobbies.

>
You really hate toy languages don't you?

 Nobody has made that claim other than yourself.
 I don't feel that your 'toy' languages are interesting
in the context of comp.lang.c.

My systems language is actually one of the closest to C in its type system, language level, and the sorts of things it can do.
/How/ it does them regarding syntax and some modern features is rather different.
So I think it is interesting as an alternate take on what such a language could look like.

>
The fact is that a compiler is only a bit of software like anything
else. It might take some input, process it, and produce output.
>
When someone has claimed to write some program, do you always demand
they produce a 'formal grammar' for it?

 Now you're being ridiculous.

No, JP was. But of course you wouldn't be rude to him or make belittling remarks.

Intentionally, no doubt, to induce
a response.

Wow. All this Bart-baiting ('fool', 'ignorant', 'hacker', 'feeble', 'idiot', mentioning 'Professional' with a clear insinuation that I wasn't, 'toy' this and 'toy' that), isn't exactly that?
You lot are attacking on multiple fronts, I'm just defending.

 

>
What is the complexity threshold anyway for something to need such a
formal specification?

 Most real-world working applications start with a formal specification.

And you know that for a fact?
/My/ real-world apps started with a general idea and then evolved.
I mean, what would be the formal specification for AutoCAD? (The nearest product to mine at the time.)

As do most other real-world projects whether it is a payroll application

I've done a payroll app. It was a custom job and the rough specs were provided by my client. There was never a formal paper spec. It was part of a larger app and ran a $1m a year business for over 20 years.

or a massive construction project like Vogtle Unit #3.
 snip rant