CIVS poll result

Poll description

Everyone has to write a parser sometime. What approaches do you prefer when the time comes?

Result

1. yacc (Not defeated in any contest vs. another choice)

2. hand-coded recursive descent, loses to yacc by 27–18

3. bison

4. parser combinators (write-in), loses to bison by 25–17

5. ANTLR, loses to parser combinators (write-in) by 19–16

6. CUP, loses to ANTLR by 14–5

7. other LALR parser generator, loses to CUP by 9–8

8. Perl re's, loses to other LALR parser generator by 12–10

9. other LL(k) parser generator, loses to Perl re's by 9–7

10. hand-coded shift-reduce parser, loses to Perl re's by 12–10

11. Elkhound, loses to hand-coded shift-reduce parser by 7–6

12. Pratt parser (Top down precedence) (write-in), loses to Elkhound by 7–4

13. Parsing Expression Grammar (write-in), loses to Pratt parser (Top down precedence) (write-in) by 8–6

14. DMS (write-in), loses to Parsing Expression Grammar (write-in) by 7–6

15. ply (write-in), loses to DMS (write-in) by 8–3

16. Definite Clause Grammars (Prolog) (write-in), loses to ply (write-in) by 22–4

17. The BNFC Converter (write-in), loses to Definite Clause Grammars (Prolog) (write-in) by 31–3

18. Earley (write-in), loses to The BNFC Converter (write-in) by 34–2

19. LR(1) parser generator (menhir) (write-in), loses to Earley (write-in) by 41–2

20. Parse::RecDescent (Perl) (write-in), loses to LR(1) parser generator (menhir) (write-in) by 43–1

21. Javacc (write-in), loses to Parse::RecDescent (Perl) (write-in) by 43–2

22. Copper (write-in), loses to Javacc (write-in) by 50–0

23. Parsec (Haskell) (write-in), loses to Copper (write-in) by 52–2

For simplicity, some details of the poll result are not shown.

Result details

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23
1. yacc	-	27	16	27	25	26	26	30	30	31	28	32	31	31	34	37	43	46	49	49	50	51	52
2. hand-coded recursive descent	18	-	22	28	27	29	27	33	31	33	31	34	32	34	35	41	45	47	50	51	51	53	53
3. bison	16	22	-	25	21	22	22	27	24	25	24	28	27	27	30	33	40	42	47	48	48	51	52
4. parser combinators (write-in)	15	13	17	-	19	19	17	18	20	21	20	20	18	20	27	35	40	41	44	45	45	50	52
5. ANTLR	12	12	10	16	-	14	14	18	17	18	16	20	18	19	22	28	36	38	44	46	45	49	52
6. CUP	8	7	9	12	5	-	9	14	11	11	11	13	14	11	17	27	35	39	45	46	45	49	52
7. other LALR parser generator	4	8	7	11	9	8	-	12	10	12	10	12	14	12	17	25	32	36	42	43	43	49	52
8. Perl re's	8	6	8	13	8	9	10	-	9	12	11	16	15	13	19	27	33	36	42	44	44	50	52
9. other LL(k) parser generator	3	4	4	7	3	4	2	7	-	7	5	10	9	8	14	25	31	35	41	43	43	49	52
10. hand-coded shift-reduce parser	4	3	4	12	5	8	5	10	7	-	7	11	11	9	14	25	32	36	43	44	44	50	53
11. Elkhound	4	4	3	8	2	1	3	6	3	6	-	7	9	6	12	23	31	35	42	44	44	49	52
12. Pratt parser (Top down precedence) (write-in)	4	3	4	7	4	4	4	5	3	6	4	-	8	4	10	22	29	33	41	42	43	49	52
13. Parsing Expression Grammar (write-in)	7	4	7	9	7	7	5	8	7	9	7	6	-	7	14	25	32	35	41	42	43	49	52
14. DMS (write-in)	1	1	0	6	0	0	0	3	0	2	0	4	6	-	8	21	29	33	41	42	43	49	52
15. ply (write-in)	4	3	2	2	2	2	3	4	3	5	3	3	3	3	-	22	30	34	41	42	43	49	52
16. Definite Clause Grammars (Prolog) (write-in)	3	3	3	3	3	4	4	4	4	6	4	4	4	4	4	-	31	33	41	42	43	49	52
17. The BNFC Converter (write-in)	3	3	2	1	3	3	3	4	3	4	3	3	3	3	3	3	-	34	42	42	43	49	52
18. Earley (write-in)	3	2	2	2	2	2	2	3	2	3	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	-	41	42	43	49	52
19. LR(1) parser generator (menhir) (write-in)	2	1	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	-	43	43	49	52
20. Parse::RecDescent (Perl) (write-in)	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	-	43	49	52
21. Javacc (write-in)	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	3	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	-	50	52
22. Copper (write-in)	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	-	52
23. Parsec (Haskell) (write-in)	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	-

Ballot reporting was not enabled for this poll.

Rank 1:
yacc (0): vs. 1 : (16 - 16) vs. 4 : (18 - 27) vs. 13 : (15 - 27) vs. 3 : (12 - 25) vs. 2 : (8 - 26) vs. 8 : (4 - 26) vs. 5 : (8 - 30) vs. 6 : (4 - 28) vs. 12 : (7 - 31) vs. 7 : (3 - 30) vs. 9 : (4 - 31) vs. 11 : (4 - 32) vs. 10 : (1 - 31) vs. 14 : (4 - 34) vs. 15 : (3 - 37) vs. 16 : (3 - 43) vs. 17 : (3 - 46) vs. 18 : (2 - 49) vs. 19 : (2 - 49) vs. 20 : (2 - 50) vs. 21 : (1 - 51) vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 2:
hand-coded recursive descent (4): vs. 1 : (22 - 22) vs. 3 : (12 - 27) vs. 13 : (13 - 28) vs. 8 : (8 - 27) vs. 2 : (7 - 29) vs. 6 : (4 - 31) vs. 7 : (4 - 31) vs. 5 : (6 - 33) vs. 12 : (4 - 32) vs. 9 : (3 - 33) vs. 11 : (3 - 34) vs. 14 : (3 - 35) vs. 10 : (1 - 34) vs. 15 : (3 - 41) vs. 16 : (3 - 45) vs. 17 : (2 - 47) vs. 18 : (1 - 50) vs. 19 : (1 - 51) vs. 20 : (1 - 51) vs. 22 : (2 - 53) vs. 21 : (0 - 53)
Rank 3:
bison (1): vs. 13 : (17 - 25) vs. 3 : (10 - 21) vs. 2 : (9 - 22) vs. 8 : (7 - 22) vs. 5 : (8 - 27) vs. 7 : (4 - 24) vs. 12 : (7 - 27) vs. 6 : (3 - 24) vs. 9 : (4 - 25) vs. 11 : (4 - 28) vs. 10 : (0 - 27) vs. 14 : (2 - 30) vs. 15 : (3 - 33) vs. 16 : (2 - 40) vs. 17 : (2 - 42) vs. 18 : (2 - 47) vs. 20 : (2 - 48) vs. 19 : (1 - 48) vs. 21 : (1 - 51) vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 4:
parser combinators (write-in) (13): vs. 3 : (16 - 19) vs. 5 : (13 - 18) vs. 8 : (11 - 17) vs. 2 : (12 - 19) vs. 12 : (9 - 18) vs. 9 : (12 - 21) vs. 6 : (8 - 20) vs. 7 : (7 - 20) vs. 11 : (7 - 20) vs. 10 : (6 - 20) vs. 14 : (2 - 27) vs. 15 : (3 - 35) vs. 16 : (1 - 40) vs. 17 : (2 - 41) vs. 18 : (2 - 44) vs. 20 : (2 - 45) vs. 19 : (1 - 45) vs. 21 : (1 - 50) vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 5:
ANTLR (3): vs. 8 : (9 - 14) vs. 2 : (5 - 14) vs. 5 : (8 - 18) vs. 12 : (7 - 18) vs. 9 : (5 - 18) vs. 6 : (2 - 16) vs. 7 : (3 - 17) vs. 11 : (4 - 20) vs. 10 : (0 - 19) vs. 14 : (2 - 22) vs. 15 : (3 - 28) vs. 16 : (3 - 36) vs. 17 : (2 - 38) vs. 18 : (2 - 44) vs. 20 : (2 - 45) vs. 19 : (1 - 46) vs. 21 : (1 - 49) vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 6:
CUP (2): vs. 8 : (8 - 9) vs. 9 : (8 - 11) vs. 5 : (9 - 14) vs. 7 : (4 - 11) vs. 12 : (7 - 14) vs. 11 : (4 - 13) vs. 6 : (1 - 11) vs. 10 : (0 - 11) vs. 14 : (2 - 17) vs. 15 : (4 - 27) vs. 16 : (3 - 35) vs. 17 : (2 - 39) vs. 20 : (2 - 45) vs. 18 : (1 - 45) vs. 19 : (1 - 46) vs. 21 : (1 - 49) vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 7:
other LALR parser generator (8): vs. 5 : (10 - 12) vs. 6 : (3 - 10) vs. 9 : (5 - 12) vs. 7 : (2 - 10) vs. 11 : (4 - 12) vs. 12 : (5 - 14) vs. 10 : (0 - 12) vs. 14 : (3 - 17) vs. 15 : (4 - 25) vs. 16 : (3 - 32) vs. 17 : (2 - 36) vs. 18 : (1 - 42) vs. 20 : (2 - 43) vs. 19 : (1 - 43) vs. 21 : (1 - 49) vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 8:
Perl re's (5): vs. 7 : (7 - 9) vs. 9 : (10 - 12) vs. 6 : (6 - 11) vs. 12 : (8 - 15) vs. 10 : (3 - 13) vs. 11 : (5 - 16) vs. 14 : (4 - 19) vs. 15 : (4 - 27) vs. 16 : (4 - 33) vs. 17 : (3 - 36) vs. 18 : (2 - 42) vs. 20 : (2 - 44) vs. 19 : (1 - 44) vs. 21 : (1 - 50) vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 9:
other LL(k) parser generator (7): vs. 9 : (7 - 7) vs. 6 : (3 - 5) vs. 12 : (7 - 9) vs. 11 : (3 - 10) vs. 10 : (0 - 8) vs. 14 : (3 - 14) vs. 15 : (4 - 25) vs. 16 : (3 - 31) vs. 17 : (2 - 35) vs. 18 : (2 - 41) vs. 20 : (2 - 43) vs. 19 : (1 - 43) vs. 21 : (1 - 49) vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 10:
hand-coded shift-reduce parser (9): vs. 6 : (6 - 7) vs. 12 : (9 - 11) vs. 11 : (6 - 11) vs. 10 : (2 - 9) vs. 14 : (5 - 14) vs. 15 : (6 - 25) vs. 16 : (4 - 32) vs. 17 : (3 - 36) vs. 18 : (2 - 43) vs. 20 : (3 - 44) vs. 19 : (2 - 44) vs. 21 : (1 - 50) vs. 22 : (2 - 53)
Rank 11:
Elkhound (6): vs. 12 : (7 - 9) vs. 11 : (4 - 7) vs. 10 : (0 - 6) vs. 14 : (3 - 12) vs. 15 : (4 - 23) vs. 16 : (3 - 31) vs. 17 : (2 - 35) vs. 18 : (2 - 42) vs. 20 : (2 - 44) vs. 19 : (1 - 44) vs. 21 : (1 - 49) vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 12:
Pratt parser (Top down precedence) (write-in) (11): vs. 10 : (4 - 4) vs. 12 : (6 - 8) vs. 14 : (3 - 10) vs. 15 : (4 - 22) vs. 16 : (3 - 29) vs. 17 : (2 - 33) vs. 18 : (2 - 41) vs. 19 : (1 - 42) vs. 20 : (2 - 43) vs. 21 : (1 - 49) vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 13:
Parsing Expression Grammar (write-in) (12): vs. 10 : (6 - 7) vs. 14 : (3 - 14) vs. 15 : (4 - 25) vs. 16 : (3 - 32) vs. 17 : (2 - 35) vs. 18 : (2 - 41) vs. 19 : (1 - 42) vs. 20 : (2 - 43) vs. 21 : (1 - 49) vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 14:
DMS (write-in) (10): vs. 14 : (3 - 8) vs. 15 : (4 - 21) vs. 16 : (3 - 29) vs. 17 : (2 - 33) vs. 18 : (2 - 41) vs. 19 : (1 - 42) vs. 20 : (2 - 43) vs. 21 : (1 - 49) vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 15:
ply (write-in) (14): vs. 15 : (4 - 22) vs. 16 : (3 - 30) vs. 17 : (2 - 34) vs. 18 : (2 - 41) vs. 19 : (1 - 42) vs. 20 : (2 - 43) vs. 21 : (1 - 49) vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 16:
Definite Clause Grammars (Prolog) (write-in) (15): vs. 16 : (3 - 31) vs. 17 : (2 - 33) vs. 18 : (2 - 41) vs. 19 : (1 - 42) vs. 20 : (2 - 43) vs. 21 : (1 - 49) vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 17:
The BNFC Converter (write-in) (16): vs. 17 : (2 - 34) vs. 18 : (2 - 42) vs. 19 : (1 - 42) vs. 20 : (2 - 43) vs. 21 : (1 - 49) vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 18:
Earley (write-in) (17): vs. 18 : (2 - 41) vs. 19 : (1 - 42) vs. 20 : (2 - 43) vs. 21 : (1 - 49) vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 19:
LR(1) parser generator (menhir) (write-in) (18): vs. 20 : (2 - 43) vs. 19 : (1 - 43) vs. 21 : (1 - 49) vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 20:
Parse::RecDescent (Perl) (write-in) (19): vs. 20 : (2 - 43) vs. 21 : (1 - 49) vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 21:
Javacc (write-in) (20): vs. 21 : (0 - 50) vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 22:
Copper (write-in) (21): vs. 22 : (2 - 52)
Rank 23:
Parsec (Haskell) (write-in) (22): vs. 21 : (52 - 2)

Feel like voting on something else? Try one of these public polls:

Condorcet Internet Voting Service

Poll Results: How do you write your parsers?

Poll description

Result

Result details

Condorcet Internet Voting Service

Poll Results: How do you write your parsers?

Poll description

Result

Result detailsHide details

Result details