Cwerg VS star

Perhaps these have already been dealt with and I'm missing critical information. If so, my apologies. Great work, in any case.

[1] https://github.com/robertmuth/Cwerg/tree/master/FrontEnd#dis...

Cwerg has backend that can be used as JIT and is written with readability in mind. Additional documentation can be found here: https://github.com/robertmuth/Cwerg/tree/master/Docs

I defined a basic ISA-like IR for Cwerg. It has unlimited registers and no constraints on immediates.

entire compiler front end ast nodes

I was also going down the path of bike shedding concrete syntax for my language Cwerg before pulling the plug on that effort and just using s-exprs. I managed to make the s-expr quite succinct by carefully choosing the order of arguments so I can omit optional ones. Also very helpful was to use square brackets for list, e.g. (call fun-name [arg1 arg2]). This simplifies parsing a little bit and is easier on the eye. Here are some Code Examples

I am iterating over the languages features for Cwerg's Frontend which aims to be a low level language with about the complexity of C but with some of the comforts of modern languages. I am especially happy with the choice of adding sum types. Relative to C the current feature set looks like this: Removed: * arrays decay to pointers * bitfields * separate compilation (more of a backend issue) * pre-processor * varargs * implcit type conversions * (untagged) unions * ++/-- * comma operator * implicitly nullable pointers * goto

my own language Star! enjoyability is one of my main goals with the language, along with the "powerful, productive, and predictable" line

This is actually done by several bootstrapped languages, such as Crystal, Nim, Raku, and even my own language Star

In Star, commas and newlines are analogous everywhere, even inside array literals. This actually solves the issue of trailing commas by not needing commas at all

I really like Nemerle's OOP+FP hybrid model, and I've taken a lot of it to heart while designing my language Star, which is similar in spirit.

Most languages are afraid to for some reason, most likely because it "breaks tradition" or whatever. The only languages I'm aware of that allow this are Hack (for C-like enums) and my language Star (for both C-like and OCaml-like enums)

It's currently a work-in-progress, mainly due to subtyping issues with generics (which I'm honestly too lazy to fix rn, focusing on other stuff first). the code is located here, although be aware that it's a bit messy lol

Making lots of progress on Star's typechecker, which has been very difficult due to its expansive type system. Although still not completely finished or useable, it does at least work a bit. Currently need to implement type variable expansion/substitution, "lazy" type refinement (because I have no clue what else to call it), and some basic support for existentials

I think this is referred to as partial or lazy initialization. I have this feature in my own language Star (which us null-safe), but I don't have an actual null literal for this purpose

Sure I guess, here's one for Star: ``` You appear to be advocating a new: [X] functional [X] imperative [X] object-oriented [ ] procedural [ ] stack-based [X] "multi-paradigm" [ ] lazy [ ] eager [X] statically-typed [ ] dynamically-typed [ ] pure [X] impure [ ] non-hygienic [ ] visual [X] beginner-friendly [ ] non-programmer-friendly [ ] completely incomprehensible programming language. Your language will not work. Here is why it will not work.

Hello, I'm the developer of the Star programming language, and I have some questions about how to typecheck several new/uncommon features that it has, and looking for feedback on it in general.