glebbash

It's funny yeah but it makes sense and is not really a problem.

You would write a compiler in the language that is the closest to your perfect. Trying to fix the original language by making a "clone" of it and adding/removing features to your liking.

That is what I want to change here by making a very simple language that if someone would like they could just fork it and add/remove the needed features instead of building one from scratch.

If this idea won't work then at least a very simple compiler would be a good learning resource, so a win win anyways.

Well the goal for this project is to go dependency free so, yep, it's not a good fit here.

Cool project you too :) It's fun to see how the language of the first compiler affects a lot of the syntax of the languages we build.

Yay a first user :) Added the license.

Fixed the link, forgot that markdown references use double square brackets.

Hmm, I haven't thought about it the license actually, I would default to MIT, but wanted to keep the number of files minimal in repo, hehe.

Will figure it out asap, thanks.

Alright, will take a look at it sometime. But the more interesting proposal for me right now is the component model.

I don't see a need for it. Maybe for some higher level scripting, but I don't have any plans for that.

Mostly for recreational programming. And then for exploring what the languages with minimal infrastructure could look like.

That was how it started actually, I wanted to make a superset of WAT. But then I switched to a more familiar C-like constructs and that gave me a big boost in productivity.

I think the superset of WAT idea is very viable and someone more comfortable with s-expressions should explore that for sure.

Thanks, I will definitely do that once the feature set will get stable enough. Don't want to update docs constantly :)

As for now, you can check the examples folder and explore the compiler sources, tried to keep everything simple.