Talk:Compiler Construction/Lexical analysis

The code in the second section is a horrible mix of pseudocode, VB and Java. Either it should be in pure pseudocode or in a real language; mixing the two does more harm than good.

"Cubic Compiling"?
This section (1.5 as the time of writing) looks like the output of a translator bot at best or a paper generator at worst. The text in this section is utterly uncomprehensible and I was not even able to find out what "cubic compiling" is supposed to be. There is an IDE by the name of CubicIDE, though, so this might be related spam. I suggest to delete this section altogether, but I am not sufficiently certain that this is not merely a heavily mistranslated, legit content. 46.142.17.67 (discuss) 10:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The only connection I saw to cubic compiling was that something was at O(n^3) - in particular an ad-hoc algorithm. Unless the author of that article knows something I don't, a cubic O-notation would be a disaster for a recursive-compiler, especially when an interpreter would normally use O(n^2) at worst when doing variable lookups.  It's almost as if the section wants to say the parse tree is bad, but I see absolutely no indication why that would be the case.   Finally, "eradicating" 290000 articles?  Really, word salad doesn't do that.  Since it was always like that, nuke it from orbit just to be sure. --Sigma 7 (discuss • contribs) 15:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)