|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |