Re: [boost] Late review of Boost.Parser

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 12:03 PM David Sankel via Boost wrote:

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 12:38 PM David Sankel wrote:

...

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 12:04 PM Christian Mazakas via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

...

Parser combinator libraries have progressed a lot since then and, having used both styles extensively, I'm much more eager to pick up one of the more modern designs. I would expect a Boost library to reflect the state of the art not only in language features used, but also in API design for the domain.

The thing about Haskell is that it's had time to gain ground but it just

...

hasn't because people aren't interested in it.

This isn't relevant.

There's one more thing I'd like to point out. A GitHub code search for "#include

- StackOverflow developer survey data on language poplarity ( https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey) - GitHub code search for Boost.Spirit ( https://github.com/search?type=code&auto_enroll=true&q=%22%23include+%3Cboost%2Fspirit%22+%28path%3A*.cpp+OR+path%3A*.h+OR+path%3A*.hpp%29 ) - GitHub code search for Parsec ( https://github.com/search?type=code&auto_enroll=true&q=%22import+Text.Parsec%22+path%3A*.hs )

A lot of C++ programmers use Spirit. A lot of Haskell programmers use Parsec. Even if it's way more that use Parsec proportionally, so what? I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from this other than, "Different languages have different modalities." This doesn't speak to the issue at hand -- which one's essential design makes a better C++ (and in particular, Boost) library? Zach