How to Write Your Own Compiler (2009)

Re:How to Write Your Own Compiler (2009) by zeveb on Friday August 25, 2017 @11:56AM (#15099401)

> Most languages look pretty much the same because we do have half a century of experience with what people get comfortable with.

I think it's more about familiarity rather than any inherent quality of the syntax itself.

> But for many of us, being able to instantly get an overview is a visual process that requires more distinct syntax.

I think colour and shape can go a long way here, too — and that applies to both Forth & Lisp.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How to Write Your Own Compiler (2009) by andreasgonewild on Friday August 25, 2017 @12:27PM (#15099707)

Or choice of symbols and identifiers. People love to bash Perl, but Larry is definitely on to something when it comes to names and symbols, however flawed/misused the implementation in Perl may be; I feel like we're chasing the same ghosts.

An example is Snabels use of "|" for resetting the stack, "_" for dropping the top and "(..)" for grouping modifications; it smells a tiny bit like Perl in that it's not afraid of using what's available to get the wanted experience, but has a dramatic effect on code shape compared to regular mumble-Forth.

[ Parent | on HN ]