The author details the creation of their own programming language, "Oxcart," driven by dissatisfaction with existing tools for personal projects. Oxcart prioritizes simplicity and explicitness over complex features, aiming for ease of understanding and modification. Key features include a minimal syntax inspired by Lisp, straightforward memory management using a linear allocator and garbage collection, and a compilation process that produces C code for portability. The language is designed specifically for the author's own use case – writing small, self-contained programs – and therefore sacrifices performance and common features for the sake of personal productivity and enjoyment.
In a blog post titled "A Programming Language Made for Me," author Oskar Zylinski details his journey of creating a bespoke programming language, 'Oskar,' tailored specifically to his personal needs and preferences. Driven by a desire for greater control over his tooling and a fascination with language design, Zylinski embarks on a project to craft a language that directly addresses his perceived shortcomings in existing languages. He eschews the pursuit of widespread adoption or general-purpose utility, explicitly focusing on features and design choices that cater solely to his individual workflow and coding style.
The post outlines the motivations behind this undertaking, highlighting Zylinski's frustration with the perceived verbosity and syntactic complexities of languages like C++. He expresses a longing for a more concise and expressive syntax, drawing inspiration from languages like Nim and Python. The desire for fine-grained control over memory management and performance optimization also factors prominently in his decision.
Zylinski then delves into the technical aspects of Oskar's development. He describes choosing C as the implementation language for its performance characteristics and low-level control. He details his implementation of a custom lexer, parser, and interpreter, explaining the process of translating Oskar code into an intermediate representation and subsequently executing it. The post touches on specific language features, including a simplified type system, custom operators, and unique control flow mechanisms, all meticulously designed to align with Zylinski’s personal coding philosophy. He emphasizes the iterative nature of the development process, constantly refining and adapting the language based on his ongoing experiences and evolving needs.
Furthermore, the post explores the benefits Zylinski has derived from using Oskar in personal projects, including improved code clarity, reduced development time, and increased satisfaction with the coding process. He acknowledges the limitations of a language designed for a single user, recognizing that Oskar’s specialized nature makes it unsuitable for collaborative projects or broader community adoption. However, he asserts the value of such an endeavor as a learning experience and a means of achieving a higher degree of personal productivity and coding enjoyment. The overarching theme of the post revolves around the empowering nature of creating personalized tools and the potential for individual developers to shape their digital environment to perfectly suit their unique requirements, even if those tools remain confined to a personal context. Zylinski concludes by encouraging others to consider similar ventures, emphasizing the intrinsic rewards of crafting tools specifically tailored to individual needs and preferences.
Summary of Comments ( 104 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43970800
Hacker News users generally praised the author's approach of building a language tailored to their specific needs. Several commenters highlighted the value of this kind of "scratch your own itch" project for deepening one's understanding of language design and implementation. Some expressed interest in the specific features mentioned, like pattern matching and optional typing. A few cautionary notes were raised regarding the potential for over-engineering and the long-term maintenance burden of a custom language. However, the prevailing sentiment supported the author's exploration, viewing it as a valuable learning experience and a potential solution for a niche use case. Some discussion also revolved around existing languages that offer similar features, suggesting the author might explore those before committing to a fully custom implementation.
The Hacker News post titled "A programming language made for me" (linking to zylinski.se/posts/a-programming-language-for-me/) generated a moderate amount of discussion, with several commenters engaging with the author's approach to language design.
Several commenters praised the author for taking the initiative to build a language tailored to their specific needs and workflow. They saw this as a valuable exercise in understanding language design principles and appreciated the author's willingness to share their process and rationale. Some saw it as a refreshing alternative to constantly adapting to existing languages that might not perfectly fit a particular problem domain.
A recurring theme in the comments was the tension between creating a language specifically for personal use versus designing one for a wider audience. Some argued that hyper-specialization could limit the language's applicability and hinder collaboration, while others emphasized the benefits of prioritizing individual productivity and enjoyment. One commenter suggested that starting with a personal focus could be a good first step, potentially evolving into a more general-purpose language later on.
There was also discussion around the practicality of maintaining and evolving a personal language. Some commenters questioned the long-term viability of such projects, highlighting the potential challenges of debugging, tooling, and documentation. Concerns were raised about the "bus factor" – the risk of the project becoming unsustainable if the sole developer becomes unavailable.
Technical aspects of the language itself were also discussed, with some commenters offering specific feedback and suggestions. Topics included the choice of syntax, the implementation of certain features, and the potential benefits of incorporating existing language constructs or libraries. One commenter recommended exploring existing niche languages that might already address some of the author's needs.
Finally, some commenters drew parallels to other projects where individuals had created custom tools or languages to solve specific problems, emphasizing the empowering nature of such endeavors. They highlighted the potential for personal projects to lead to unexpected insights and innovations.