PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 1, 1977Communications of the ACM229 citationsOpen Access

What can we do about the unnecessary diversity of notation for syntactic definitions?

NWNiklaus Wirth

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

The population of programming languages is steadily growing, and there is no end of this growth in sight. Many language definitions appear in journals, many are found in technical reports, and perhaps an even greater number remains confined to proprietory circles. After frequent exposure to these definitions, one cannot fail to notice the lack of “common denominators.” The only widely accepted fact is that the language structure is defined by a syntax. But even notation for syntactic description eludes any commonly agreed standard form, although the underlying ancestor is invariably the Backus-Naur Form of the Algol 60 report. As variations are often only slight, they become annoying for their very lack of an apparent motivation.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Niklaus Wirth (1977) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a203dc0da3e333a78150808https://doi.org/10.1145/359863.359883
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper