Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

use Perl

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Ajax Perl syntax highlighting More | Login | Reply

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to use the classic discussion system instead. If you login, you can remember this preference.

Performance/Behavior vs. PPI::HTML ? (Score:1)

by renodino (6856)

Any idea how well Perl::Tidy compares to PPI::HTML ? I whipped together a code folder/compressor [presicient.com] for PPI::HTML, but haven't had time to get it CPAN ready yet, and am in mind to add some add'l behaviors. PPI::HTML tends to be a bit sluggish, but I'm wondering if it does a more complete tagging of language elements than Tidy ?
- Re: (Score:1)
  
  by Alias (5735)
  
  PPI::HTML is the most accurate of all of the syntax highlighters, by a significant margin, especially when you hit things like heredocs and complex regular expressions and so on.
  
  The only problem is that, yes, PPI and therefore PPI::HTML are resource pigs. Parsing Perl is Hard :)
  
  Personally, I use PPI::HTML when I can afford the CPU or I'm caching a lot, and the rest of the time I don't bother at all.
  - Re:Performance/Behavior vs. PPI::HTML ? (Score:1)
    
    by renodino (6856) on 2007.04.18 10:50 (#54528) Homepage Journal
    
    Thnx. I kinda figured as much, but thought I'd double check. Since my effort is for a debugger, I need as precise a parse as possible, so I'll stick w/ PPI::HTML (I already have a caching mechanism in place).
    
    Reply to This
    
    Parent

Get More Comments

Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.