Invisible wrote:

> I've come up with a language I'm calling Hax. I haven't finished 
> figuring out what it looks like or how it works yet. It's basically 
> Pascal with a few tweaks. And by "tweaks" I mean that the similarity 
> between Hax and Pascal is like Java vs C++. Superficially, it looks the 
> same. But if you investigate for more than 5 seconds, you'll discover 
> that they're actually TOTALLY UNRELATED! >_<

As I've rapidly discovered, designing a language like this means that 
the syntax tree ends up being *really* complicated!

I mean, your basic Haskell syntax tree consists of a type for 
expressions, a type for patterns, and a type for type signatures. And 
for that, you get a usable language. (Of course, once you start wanting 
classes and infix operators and modules and so on, it starts to get more 
complicated. But the basic language is really very simple.)

Hax, on the other hand, requires about four pages of type declarations 
to describe its syntax tree. (And, therefore, a similar amount of code 
every time you want to process it somehow.) I'm not even sure I've got 
it right yet! o_O

Hmm, maybe this wasn't such a sensible idea after all. ;-)

Post a reply to this message