Here's the Github link!

The README explains quite a bit of how the code works, so I won't really go into it very deeply here. But, the gist of it is that the language only uses 8-bit hex numbers for everything.

Here is a simple "Hello, World!" program!

21 05 01 00
64 05 01 00
6C 05 01 00
72 05 01 00
6F 05 01 00
57 05 01 00
20 05 01 00
2C 05 01 00
6F 05 01 00
6C 05 01 00
6C 05 01 00
65 05 01 00
48 05 01 00

Fun, right?

If you are interested enough to try it out, please let me know what you'd like to see come to it/if there are any bugs you encounter! This is my first programming language after all, so I don't expect it to be perfect!

Thank you to everyone who gave feedback on my article about memory safety.

I used the input to vastly improve the article (see "Achieving memory safety").

Please take a look and share your thoughts again and consider starring the Seed7 project on GitHub.

I created a fun, completely normal and sane side project.

I explain how to implement a certain recursive function without the use of any recursive bindings in a tiny language called FUN. Then, I apply the same ideas to several more recursive functions so we clearly see the pattern. It begins our exploration into a certain famous combinator.

I can already a host a small subset of C, that can only host: "int myfunc() { return 10; } " , Which compiles to:

myfunc:

// prologue here

mov w0, #10

// epilogue here

ret

But what should I do next?

The choice to add a windowing library to the stdlib is probably controversial. I feel that the general consensus tends to be that anything related to graphics shouldn't be in the standard library. So I'm kind of interested in what people think about this.

A few years ago I made EarScript, a "simple" programming language based on brainfuck, with several additional "quality of life features" like goto statements.

Recently I've been wanting to make an evolution of that programming language and do so by incorporating a stack, as the previous language was completely tape-based in design.

I know for example lox from the Crafting Interpreters book is a well explained example, but I was wondering if there's programming languages that are closer to what brainfuck is, but based on a stack design rather than a tape design, or a register based design like some assembly languages (if I understand correctly). I think Wasm would be an example?

Are there any examples of simple stack based programming languages you'd recommend me to look into?

I've come across languages such as Lisp and MUMPS that feature minimal grammar and lack any reserved keywords. But is it possible to achieve this in a language with a syntax resembling JavaScript? I'm aware that JavaScript has some handy rules, like "two identifiers cannot appear directly next to each other," which could be useful. Still, can this be accomplished for every keyword?

If it is possible, how? would it rely on a fragile lexer hack, or is there a solution that scales as new language keywords/constructs are added?

Clarification: Some people are reading this as "remove all keywords from JavaScript." That's not what I mean. I want to keep if, for, while, const, function etc., all of it, as syntax.

The question is only about reserved words: identifiers the lexer forbids you from using as names. Could every keyword instead be allowed to be used as variable/class/function/module name or atleast be contextual?

Since calling the syntax JS-like comes with its own nuances. I will also clarify on that part:

1. Assume the language does not have "automatic semicolon insertion" and semicolons are mandatory as statement terminators.
2. Assume the lexer is white space sensitive and produces different tokens for -5 (UnaryMinus, NumericLiteral(5)) and - 5 (Minus, NumericLiteral(5)) and that improperly spaced forms like 8 -5 produces error for the sake of simplicity. Otherwise forms like if(x) -5 may be parsed as if(x) - 5 and cause further unnecessary problems.
3. Using a keyword as an Identifier may or may not limit the functionality of the keyword in that scope. Eg. (Inside constructor of a class) function super() {console.log("hi");} super(); // logs "hi" instead of calling the parent class

Even more clarification: I will list out the different types of reserved words in javascript. Note some of the newer keywords may be contextual or reserved only in strict mode or depending on the scope.

1. Literal like keywords: true, false, null. Easiest to solve, just make them property of the window object (as done with undefined, yes null is a reserved word but undefined isnt) or make them language constants like NaN, Infinity.

2. Operator keywords:

   1. Prefix operator keywords: typeof, delete, void, new
   2. Infix operator keywords: in, instanceof, as, extends

3. is-this-really-a-keyword keyword: super, this

4. Declaration keywords: const, var, let, function, class.

5. Module: import, from, export

6. Declaration modifiers: async, function*, static, get, set.

7. Control flow: if else, try catch finally, while, do while. And return, break, continue, throw.

8. Complex cases?:

   1. switch, case, default. For context Javascript uses identifier: statement to represent statement labels, helpful in breaking outer loops.
   2. Standard for loops and for in/of loops.

Why? What am I trying to achieve?: This is mostly a theoretical question I stumbled upon while creating my own language. I know it might have downsides for developer tools and experience. I am just wondering if it's possible.

So i stumbled upon this project, the zeta programming language by roy murphy on github. It is supposed to be a next generation system programming language.

So i coudnt really find any information about this project, especially considering it has its compiler written in pure zeta, which means the project is kinda somewhat progressed to a certain point worth noting. It even has its own website, and its own package manager's website .

What left question mark to me , is the last commit was 4 months ago, barely any issues, but the creator apparently has published and talked about it in docs, with quite detail etc.

Its rather confusing for a new comer; is this project actually legit? Need smarter people who know the craft to comment

If your interested , i stumbled upon this project when another person made a new borrow checker, and his own language - also called Zeta. https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/1x1iapz/zetas_borrow_checker_the_nextgen_model_for_borrow/

I cant post any github link because apparently automod tags it.

I am back after a couple of months away while adjusting to a new job. I am currently working on the next feature for DinoCode (you can check out at dinocode.blassgo.dev), and I would love some community feedback on template design.

DinoCode already supports simple templates with intrinsic multiline support and compile-time indentation stripping:

name = "Ana"
balance = 100
tax = 15

> JSON
 {
    "name": "$name",
    "total": ${balance - tax}
 }
print JSON

By default, the compiler strips out-of-margin garbage characters and interpolates variables or expressions. Now, I want to push templates further for things like SQL queries, HTML generators, or validation schemas, without introducing heavy runtime overhead.

I already use the as operator for strict type coercion in the language:

print "42" as int + 8         # 50

My idea is to reuse as on template blocks to pass the parts to a function or an object with a magic method. For example:

> query as mysql
    SELECT * FROM users 
    WHERE id = ${user_id}

Here, query would be assigned the result of calling the mysql handler.

I am currently evaluating how to pass the parts to the handler. Which model do you think works best for representing and validating template parts cleanly?

TTCN-3 is a standardized programming language for testing communicating and distributed systems. I am struggling to build a clear mental model of its templates.

A TTCN-3 template describes a pattern that describes a set of possible values. Which can be used to match incoming messages or build dependent-types:

```ttcn3 type record Message { integer id, charstring text }

template Message greeting := { id := 42, text := "hello" }

template Message anyGreeting := { id := ?, text := "hello" } ```

Here, ? matches any value of the field's type. Templates can also be recursive:

```ttcn3 type record Payload { integer value, boolean urgent }

type record Envelope { integer id, Payload payload }

template Envelope example := { id := 42, payload := { value := (1 .. 10), urgent := ? } } ```

My first implementation idea was to lower templates into a generic tagged union:

text type Template<T> = Exact(T) | AnyValue | AnyValueOrOmit | Predicate(fn(T) -> bool)

That seems reasonable for scalar values, but it does not capture the structural nature of templates. For Template<Envelope>, each field needs to become a template recursively:

text RecordTemplate { id: Template<Integer>, payload: RecordTemplate { value: Template<Integer>, urgent: Template<Boolean> } }

Is there an established programming-language concept for this? How would you model this recursive relationship in an actul type system?

I made nandcode a week ago, which is a language only using nand, and I thought I'd improve it, so I present to you, 1bitatatime. (I just added all the logic gates and added support for unary operations like not). Can you give some ideas as what to make next?

Can dependently typed languages maintain security relevant invariants? And if so, why are they not more popular for that? Especially now that AI can write the types.

I've just published my borrow checking model! Feel free to criticize it or just ask questions!

P.S While it is experimental, This model is fully implemented for the Zeta programming language, and the latest build of the compiler, LSP and toolchain manager (zetaup) can be found via the linked GitHub. a Zed extension is under development.