Creating your own programming language

Has anyone here every created their own programming language? What was the syntax like, and what did you use to implement the language? Using Haskell to implement your language is cheating BTW, so don't even post here if your language is made from Haskell.

Here's a sample of my programming language. I used Bison/Flex to lex and parse it. Everything was done in C. It's very simple and similar to C.


int
main()
{
  print "Hello World";
  return 0;
}

>>2
FUCK YOU

>>3
Why??

>>3
Stroustrup?


(print "Hello World")

>>1
Yes I have. http://seed7.sourceforge.net/

>>1
I implemented a C lexer in Haskell

>>7
Hello, Thomas.

>>1
Yes I have. http://esolangs.org/wiki/ABC

>>10
This is just Brainfuck with As, Bs, and Cs.

I rewrote Tcl in QBasic once. Shit wasn't capable of more than two nested function calls, but it worked.

I rewrote LAMBDA CALCULUS in LAMBDA CALCULUS once. Shit wasn't capable of more than two nested function calls, but it worked.

Yo dawg I herd u like term substitution, so we put a lambda calculus in your lambda calculus so u can beta-reduct while u beta-reduct

>>14
I don't get this joke. It seems like it could be funny if you get it but I don't so fuck off.

Xarn, over and out.

>>14
The verb from which ``reduction'' is derived is not, oddly, ``to reduct''. That would just be something you could do after you removed the ducts from something.

Mine is the best

Public Shared Function AreYouAFag(ByVal You As Person) As Boolen
   If TypeOf(You) Is Fag Then
      Return True
   End If
   Return True
End Function

>>17
this language looks like Transformers
it's designed for kids and it's all fucking stupid and made of idiotic bits and peices that don't actually do anything

>>18
It's the "let's have lots of keywords instead of difficult mathematical-ish operators" school of language design. Too bad it makes code almost impossible eyeball.

>>18
>>19

Semicolins are the corner or a good programming laguage.

And parenthesis.

Case sensatvity. value and Value are obvoously completley different things.

And the inability to determine equality and and assigment based on context.

if(You == Fag)
{ //start of this if statement
      return 1;
} //end of this if statement
else
{ //start of this if statement's else
      return 1;
} //end of this if statement's else

>>17
As Boolen

did this: http://hactar.net/stutter/

written in C, including my own garbage collector.

>>22
Hello, Máté Nagy, where are you from?

>>21

It's trinary value type

>>23
Perhaps you meant Jo estét.

>>25
What

>>22
Originally, it was indented for purely educational purposes; but since then, it has seen entirely too much use in production environments,

http://themoviebar.net/blog3/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/JordanCapriButtSpankDance.gif

I've pondered making my own. I explored a variety of paradigms and languages (Lisp, Java, C/C++, Objective-C, Python, Ruby, VB, C#, etc). I wanted a fairly easy to read language. I also debated over having the language also be its own macro language. For the syntax, I chose to allow nearly every character to be an identifier (parenthesis and brackets being the only exception). White space would be the only only delimiter. I also wanted commands separated by a linefeed (since nearly all lines of code use just one line) with a character for line extension. All 'operators' are simply just identifiers. Functions can be declared to allow for only prefix notation (outside of the parenthesis) or infix notation (like operators). I never quite concluded on how infix evaluation priority would be determined. I wanted inline, anonymous (lambda) functions. But again I wasn't sure how I could abstract program flow commands and declarations so everything use the same form.

Basically I wanted the consistency and flexibility of Lisp with an easier syntax like Python. However after using Netbeans, I realized the program syntax is almost irrelevant when you have an IDE that can be wielded like the raw power of a god.

I see now that Seed7 does some of the things I was exploring. Interesting.

>>29
I think you meant to say Emacs.

>>29
Lisp with an easier syntax like Python
Wat. It doesn't get easier than Lisp, except for maybe Forth, which is harder to follow even though there's less structure to bother with.

If you're going to release a language at least try to make it practical because you might get a job out of it 10 years later (GvR).

>>32
Easier to write on regular bases, not to understand basics

I think the perfect language wouldn't have keywords at all.

BRAIN FUCK

>>36
A helpful and relevant message on /prog/ would be the biggest brainfuck of them all.

Serious answer is serious:

If you just want a VERY easy to implement language that coders (probably just yourself) will use, then go for stack-based.

If you need anything else, jam a DSL on top of Lisp with its macro system.

>>38
Can someone please explain what the fuck is a DSL?

(Post truncated.)