Glide VS Cwerg

I've added the code to the repo: https://github.com/dibsonthis/Glide/blob/main/imports/csv.gl

So for the past few months, I've been working on my data transformation language Glide. It started off as a simple toy PL that aimed to do some basic data transformation through piping. But as time went on, more and more features were added and the implementation became more complex.

I'm about 70% through writing Glide's new type system. Here are some examples:

Hey all, I'd like to hear your opinions on Glide's list comprehension syntax:

I was hesitant to spend time building a proper type system originally, but I'm so glad I decided to do it. Having a typing stage in the pipeline has made my language (Glide) feel so much closer to a real language than the toy language I've always seen it as.

Just finished the core implementation of a compile time type system for my language Glide.

Link to documentation: https://github.com/dibsonthis/Glide/wiki

I'm working on building out the csv module in my language Glide and I'm at a bit of a crossroads. I initially envisioned the csv module to build a list of objects out of the data and the user manipulates those objects directly and then can serialise them back to csv. However, I've also come up with a different solution that doesn't involve objects, but only flat lists.

My language Glide is currently dynamically typed, however I've been trying to build some sort of type system for it. I chose to go with a dynamic type system because I felt it would be a lot easier to get going, and can be written directly in the language. But I've also noticed that I could be using this time and effort on implementing a "real" static type system in the compiler itself. But I'm unsure which direction I want to take.

So I've noticed the more code I write in my language (Glide), the bigger my "standard library" gets. And by standard library, I mean a bunch of different files that contain really handy functions, i.e list functions like map, filter, reduce and string functions like to_chars, split etc.

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