tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17924780.post6571678361242040279..comments2009-11-13T18:20:46.831-08:00Harlan Iversonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14403505969348821916noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17924780.post-90273611910460982282009-11-13T18:20:46.831-08:002009-11-13T18:20:46.831-08:00Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium? <br />Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17924780.post-76076322652897123682007-11-18T15:55:00.000-08:002007-11-18T15:55:00.000-08:00Have a look at dmdscript - The source should be pretty trivial to modify to generate a tokenized tree or parse tree.. <BR/><BR/>I keep meaning to do something similar with the source as well. - It's alot more compact that most JS interpreters, and should be just as fast as the Spidermonkey one.Alan Knowleshttp://www.akbkhome.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17924780.post-38122915951373783582007-10-31T21:01:00.000-07:002007-10-31T21:01:00.000-07:00I was originally planning to use the parser in Dojo's <A HREF="http://svn.dojotoolkit.org/dojo/trunk/tools/jslinker/docs/readme.txt" REL="nofollow">JavaScript Linker</A> (AKA jslinker) for parsing JavaScript.<BR/><BR/>It looked like exactly what I wanted ... but I did a bit of testing and found some problems with the grammar. It would probably have been possible to fix these, but that got me thinking: how much has this tool been tested against real-world, production JavaScript code? After all, the readme file describes it as "alpha release ... meant for testing purposes only", so the answer is probably not much. I was really hoping for a rock-solid, well-maintained parser, so that bugs in the parser would be something I wouldn't have to worry about.<BR/><BR/>After that, I looked at Narcissus, but after my experiences with jslinker, I wondered whether I would have the same problems with Narcissus. How much has this been tested on real-world code? How well is it maintained? etc.<BR/><BR/>So in the end I decided to go with SpiderMonkey. Clearly, one of its advantages is that it has literally been tested against almost every piece of JavaScript code on the web, so you know that it's pretty robust. (Actually it's even better than that: if there are any bugs in SpiderMonkey, web authors would tend to avoid writing JavaScript code that triggers those bugs, so the end result is that you are unlikely to see such bugs for real-world code.)<BR/><BR/>If you're aiming for a more Java-friendly parser, I would tend to favor Rhino over Narcissus simply because Rhino seems to be more widely used and tested than Narcissus (although not as much as SpiderMonkey).Edhttp://siliconforks.com/noreply@blogger.com