Understanding parser combinators: a deep dive - Scott Wlaschin

[@dazraf]

Chris is one of the modern legends of functional programming. Such a good communicator! Thanks Chris for the talk which inspired me to write my own PC. I then realised that a lot of systems programming could be reduced to a set of 'parsers' and combinators. Very powerful concept.

[@Avantarius]

When looking at Haskellers explaining parser combinators you may think its rocket science... yet this guy explains it so anyone can understand it... and this stuff is actually easy!

[@abhishes]

Thats a great talk. loved it!

[@JohnDlugosz]

I didn't see how he ignores the whitespace between all the other stuff.

[@cshung]

Thank you for explaining!

[@wuzixiao1]

Thanks, it is very helpful

[@AdvancedSoul]

Very helpful. Thanks!

[@venkateswarans1012]

Source code?

[@bikerd12]

Sample code and explanation get A++ grade.

[@worldboy9684]

Awesome

[@vram288]

at 21.0 good

[@MisterFanwank]

This is just overly convoluted recursive descent by a snowflake name. The only thing exceptional here is how smug your recursion is.

[@AndersJackson]

And this is an simple introduction to write that in a functional programming language. So what is the problem?

[@seethruhead7119]

someone thinks they're smarter than everyone else...smh

[@GeorgeTsiros]

@@seethruhead7119 everyone thinks they're smarter than anyone else that is what humans do.

[@kiuhnmmnhuik2627]

​@@AndersJackson FP may look overly convoluted to someone not used to it, because higher order functions are not easy to reason with, at first. Anyway, one can also implement combinators in an imperative language. If one represents parsers as trees of parsers, one can combine parsers by combining those trees.

[@AndersJackson]

@@kiuhnmmnhuik2627 FP are easier to reason about, it is just that most common programming languages we introduce programming languages with are not FP. So it is all about what you are used to.