do you mean https://github.com/mjburgess/Lyssa and https://github.com/mjburgess/Quazar? it's true that i can't find a grammar in either of them (https://github.com/mjburgess/Lyssa/blob/master/src/impl.py#L... seems more forthy than anything else) but (while they are very much the sort of things that i like, thank you for sharing) they also seem somewhat less like 'real-world programming languages' than things like awk, ocaml, or our other example in this thread, gcc c and objective-c until gcc replaced the bison parser with a handwritten one in 02006. that last compiler was the compiler nextstep was built on, which got steve jobs back in control of apple, to replace macos with nextstep. seems pretty real-world to me
maybe you're talking about stuff you haven't released?
Indeed, that's a defunct profile where everything should be private anyway. The reops there are 13/14 years old: these were experiments with using RPython to create languages, I'd guess when I was ~20. The point of those was to profile RPython. I have created real front-ends and compiler backends in C for non-trivial langugaes.
I will soon likely create a probabilistic programming language and compiler.
The parser defines the grammar. This is quite common in mainstream languages -- iirc, only after some years did python get a formal description of a grammar.
But how can you have assurance which grammar it defines, or that it even defines a well-defined grammar?
I’m well aware that some languages don’t bother defining a proper grammar, or define it without having a mechanism to ensure their implementation matches it, but lacking that assurance is exactly the drawback of not using a parser generator.
