The “dragon book” turned 36 this year

As someone pointed out in that thread, the original version of the &quot;Dragon Book&quot; was out in 1977, making it 45 years old:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;vinodg&#x2F;status&#x2F;1497632140254609408" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;vinodg&#x2F;status&#x2F;1497632140254609408</a><p>I used it in a compiler class in college in 1980, and it was already known as the &quot;Dragon Book&quot; back then.<p>You can still buy a used copy on Amazon:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Principles-Compiler-Addison-Wesley-information-processing&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0201000229" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Principles-Compiler-Addison-Wesley-in...</a>

As the introduction to Nystrom&#x27;s <i>Crafting Interpreters</i> (craftinginterpreters.com) says:<p>&quot;Classic compiler books read like fawning hagiographies of these heroes and their tools. The cover of Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools literally has a dragon labeled “complexity of compiler design” being slain by a knight bearing a sword and shield branded “LALR parser generator” and “syntax directed translation”. They laid it on thick.&quot;<p>My thinking is similar (at least for undergrads and most people who want to write a compiler): avoid the dragon book, and stick with simple recursive descent parsing.<p>(I do kind of like Wirth&#x27;s Compiler Construction though. Wirth also likes recursive descent although he describes other methods as well.)

Obglitory Hollywood reference by a group of America’s finest thespians - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;4U9MI0u2VIE" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;4U9MI0u2VIE</a>

Does anyone have thoughts on <i>Modern Compiler Implementation in (Java|C|ML)</i> by Andrew Appel?