BuildYourOwnLisp VS swift-evolution

Build Your Own Lisp

Create your own meta-circular evaluator: https://www.buildyourownlisp.com/

I don't know about C++ but there is this incredible course on C by learning to build your own Lisp. https://www.buildyourownlisp.com/

I find the best way to learn technical topics is to build a simplified version of the thing. The trick is to understand the relationship between the high level components without getting lost in the details. This high level understanding then helps inform you when you drill down into specifics.

I think this book is a shining example of that philosophy: https://www.buildyourownlisp.com/. In the book, you implement an extremely bare-bones version of lisp, but it has been invaluable in my career. I found I was able to understand nuanced language features much more quickly because I have a clear model of how programming languages are decomposed into their components.

If you still want to produce a toy project in C I would suggest to build your own LISP ;-)

If you're after a lisp, MAL on Github (By kanaka) and https://www.buildyourownlisp.com/ are good.

Build your own Lisp is cool but offloads the language grammar and the parsing to the author's mpc library, this is already way overkill for what I'd like to do.

Writing a Lisp - https://www.buildyourownlisp.com/

Lisps are also a good language if you want to know how languages work. They are very easy to make an interpreter for. There are good tutorials for that at https://github.com/kanaka/mal and https://www.buildyourownlisp.com/.

Anyone have any input on:

https://www.buildyourownlisp.com/

It's been in my bookmarks for a long time but I've never really had time to really start it. The "who is this for" page say:

"This book is for anyone wanting to learn C, or who has once wondered how to build their own programming language.".

Well, I'm fairly competent in C (but not great) but would like to get a glimpse of what it's like to build my own language. Is it worth the time?

[A Vision for Embedded Swift](https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/visions/e...) has the details on this new build mode and is quite interesting.

> Effectively, there will be two bottom layers of Swift, and the lower one, “non-allocating” Embedded Swift, will necessarily be a more restricted compilation mode (e.g. classes will be disallowed as they fundamentally require heap allocations) and likely to be used only in very specialized use cases. “Allocating” Embedded Swift should allow classes and other language facilities that rely on the heap (e.g. indirect enums).

Also, this seems to maybe hint at the Swift runtime eventually being reimplemented in non-allocating Embedded Swift rather than the C++ (?) that it uses now:

> The Swift runtime APIs will be provided as an implementation that’s optimized for small codesize and will be available as a static library in the toolchain for common CPU architectures. Interestingly, it’s possible to write that implementation in “non-allocating” Baremetal Swift.

I may be out of my depth here as I've only casually used Rust, but this seems similar to Swift's proposed lifetime dependencies[1]. They're not in the type system formally so maybe they're closer to poloneius work

[1]: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/3055becc53a3c3...

Swift recently adopted a region-based approach for safe concurrency that builds on Milano et al’s ideas: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals...

No, it's not. Refcounting CAN be a garbage collection algorithm, but in Swift it's deterministic and done at compile time. Not to mention recently added support for non-copyable types that enforces unique ownership: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals...

You can stackallocate buffers with unsafe Swift but it's not exactly fun to use. https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals/0322-temporary-buffers.md

If the docs do not suffice, read the concurrency proposals of Swift Evolution. The authors describe the semantics in a very detailed way there.