alt Hacker NewsI am developing my own programming language, but I have no specification written for it. When people tell me that I need a specification, I reply that I already have one - the source code of the language compiler.
Replies
naruhodo • today at 6:28 AM
The source code does what it does, including bugs.
So unless you want bugs to be your specification, you actually need to specify what you want.
➕ show 2 replies
Antibabelic • today at 8:15 AM
A programming language is not the compiler. A programming language is, in fact, not software.
antonvs • today at 6:11 AM
Maybe this is your point, but the source code of any non-toy compiler is not a usable specification for the language it compiles.
If you want a specification from source code, you need to reverse engineer it. Although that’s a bit easier now, with LLMs.
➕ show 1 reply
You are not wrong. But, they are not wrong either.
I feel like if you’re designing a language, the activity of producing the spec, which involves the grammar etc., would allow you to design unencumbered by whether your design is easy to implement. Or whether it’s a good fit for the language you are implementing the compiler with.
The OP also correctly identifies that thoughtful design takes a back seat in favor of action when we start writing the code.