> the design of my ultra-dynamic language would make it near-impossible to have much tool support Dynamic, run-time reflection - yes, it is very harmful indeed

> the design of my ultra-dynamic language would make it near-impossible to have much tool support Dynamic, run-time reflection - yes, it is very harmful indeed. But dynamically extensible parser per se is not an obstacle for tooling. > If you can hijack the parsing of a program while it’s being parsed, and alter the parser using custom code you wrote, then good luck running any kind of static analysis. It’s just not going to work. It works. Easily. No problem at all. As long as you can clearly separate compilation time and runtime. I could easily make any dynamically introduced syntax extension to play well with an IDE without any user effort. Autocompletion, semantic highlighting, type balloons, autoindentation - all the usual IDE stuff. > Rest assured though, this language will be dynamically typed ;) This is a big mistake. Dynamic typing breaks tooling, not an extensible syntax.