> But then, pushing regular languages theory into the curriculum, just to rush over it so you can use them for parsing is way worse.

At least in the typical curriculum of German universities, the students already know the whole theory of regular languages from their Theoretical Computer Science lectures quite well, thus in a compiler lecture, the lecturer can indeed rush over this topic because it is just a repetition.

the dragon book is all i have on the topic. it was a big investment for me.

it taught me to think very differently but i am sure i am still not ready to write a compiler :D

I guess "back in the day" you had to be able to write an efficient parser, as no parser generators existed. If you couldn't implement whatever you wanted due to memory shortage at the parser level, then obviously it's gonna be a huge topic. Even now I believe it is good to know about this - if only to avoid pitfalls in your own grammar.

I repeatedly skip parts that are not important to me when reading books like this. I grabbed a book about embedded design and skipped about half of it, which was bus protocols, as I knew I wouldn't need it. There is no need to read the dragon book from front to back.

  > But there's a reason most modern resources skip over all of that and just make the reader write a recursive descent parser.

Unless the reason is explicitly stated there is no way to verify it's any good. There's a reason people use AI to write do their homework - it just doesn't mean it's a good one. I can think of plenty arguments for why you wouldn't look into the pros and cons of different parsing strategies in an introduction to compilers, "everyone is(or isn't) doing it" does not belong to them. In the end, it has to be written down somewhere, and if no other book is doing it for whatever reason, then the dragon book it shall be. You can always recommend skipping that part if someone asks about what book to use.

I actually think the parsing part is more important for laymen. Like, there may be a total of 10K programmers who are interested in learning compiler theories, but maybe 100 of them are ever going to write the backend -- the rest of them are stuck with either toy languages, or use parsing to help with their job. Parsing is definitely more useful for most of us who are not smart enough :D

Syntax and semantics are never orthogonal and you always need syntax so it must be considered from the start. Any reasonable syntax will quickly become much more pleasant to generate an ast or ir than, say, manually building these objects in the host language of the compiler which is what the semantics first crowd seem to propose.

It also is only the case that most of the work is the backend for some compilers, though of course all of this depends on how backend is defined. Is backend just codegen or is it all of the analysis between parsing and codegen? If you target a high level language, which is very appropriate for one's first few compilers, the backend can be quite simple. At the simplest, no ast is even necessary and the compiler can just mechanically translate one syntax into another in a single pass.

> The recommended advice is to start with semantics first. Syntax will change, there is not much point fixing it down too early.

It's actually the reverse, in my opinion. Semantics can change much more easily than syntax. You can see this in that small changes in syntax can cause massive changes in a recursive-descent parser while the semantics can change from pass-by-reference to pass-by-value and make it barely budge.

There is a reason practically every modern language has adopted syntax sigils like (choosing Zig):

    pub fn is_list(arg: arg_t, len: ui_t) bool {

This allows the identification of the various parts and types without referencing or compiling the universe. That's super important and something that must be baked in the syntax at the start or there is nothing you can do about it.