I just build a programming language in couple of hours, complete with interpreter with claude code. I know nothing about designing and implementing programming languages: https://github.com/m-o/MoonShot.
Yes, my point is that it was possible to build it before AI and in much less effort than people imagine. People in college build an interpreter in the less than couple weeks anyway and that probably has more utility.
Consider two scenarios:
1) I try to build an interpreter. I go and read some books, understand the process, build it in 2 weeks. Results: I have a toy interpreter. I understand said toy interpreter. I learnt how to do it, Learnt ideas in the field, applied my knowledge practically.
2) I try to build an interpreter. I go and ask claude to do it. It spits out something which works: Result: I have black box interpreter. I dont understand said interpreter. I didnt build any skills in building it. Took me less than an hour.
Toy interpreter is useless in both scenarios but Scenario one pay for the 2 week effort, while Scenario 2 is a vanity project.
Yes, but you can combine the solutions. Aka, you know what you are working on.You can make it much faster. Or you builds something and learn from it.
I think there will be a lot of slop and a lot of usefull stuff.
But also, what i did was just an experiment to see if it is possible, i don't think it is usable, nor do i have any plans to make it into new language. And it was done in less than 3 hours total time.
So for example, if you want to try new language features. Like let's say total immutability, or nullability as a type. Then you can build small language and try to write a code in it. Instead of writing it for weeks, you can do it in hours.
Also i didn't read that book, if there are similarities in language it must be accident or claude steering me to what he knows. And if its the interpreter design, than it probably if from that book.
And they told us, that they don't memorise the material.
