Re^2: Useful non-Perl-specific references

Does that apply, in your opinion, to the second Dragon as well as the first? I'm not fond of the first myself. The second isn't fabulous, but I consider it to be quite good. I, however, am not an expert in the field of writing compilers by any stretch. I've written compilers, but admittedly not that well. I am very interested in the pros and cons of any of the texts and references mentioned in this thread.

Christopher E. Stith
use coffee;

Comment on Re^2: Useful non-Perl-specific references

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re^2: Useful non-Perl-specific references by Elian (Parson) on Jun 26, 2003 at 20:03 UTC
That is my opinion on the 2^nd edition Dragon. :) I don't have a first edition of it, but all the other compiler books in my collection are better than the Dragon. (Arguably the copy of the Tao Te Ching I have is a better compiler book than the Dragon...)	[reply]
Re^4: Useful non-Perl-specific references by mr_mischief (Monsignor) on Jun 26, 2003 at 21:15 UTC
I'd like to now what those are. I don't have any really good books dedicated to compiler design I guess. I have the O'Reilly lex & yacc book, I have the aforementioned Programming Language Pragmatics which isn't per se a how-to on compiler writing but has lots of suggestions on certain topics within the realm of writing compilers, Writing Compilers and Interpreters by Ronald Mak (with which I am not very impressed although it does teach how to write a non-optimizing recursive descent parser fairly effectively), and a few books which touch on interpretation and compilation (including books on assembly, on the general practices of programming, on embedded programming, on advanced user interfaces, etc.). Of the group which I have, the Dragon is the best one devoted entirely to the hows and whys of building a whole compiler. Lex&Yacc and Programming Language Pragmatics together make for a good team, though. Christopher E. Stith use coffee;	[reply]


Think about Loose Coupling
	PerlMonks