[lelanthran]

No you weren't, many of us, like myself, have designed small languages over the years.

After a few of these, you stop designing syntax: you just skip the syntax and directly read ASTs instead of whatever syntax you wasted your time on.

My next language is going to be a FORTH of some type .

[packetlost]

I don't think it's worth making a FORTH unless you plan to build an optimizing compiler better than what iForth, gForth, or VFX have done, open source and maintain it, or exclusively target microcontrollers. FORTH is a great "language" but the ecosystem is tiny and the tooling is pretty minimal.

[lelanthran]

Well, yeah, I hear you.

But consider that I didn't make lisp-like languages because I didn't find anything suitable.

There were (and still are) lots of nice Lisp implementations when I made my variations over the years.

It's the same with any language created by a single person: we aren't doing it so that we can use it in production (that's a bonus, if possible).

[packetlost]

Fair enough!

[hoosieree]

I thought part of the reason people use forth is because they don't need or want the dependencies and complexity of a big ecosystem or lots of tooling.

[carapace]

I worked with Joy for some time and came to the conclusion that syntax is a MacGuffin.