4 ms·
To answer your question: this should 100% just be tooling on top of an existing language rather than a custom syntax. By ditching the mainstream, you're not jus
by KurSix 7mo ago
To answer your question: this should 100% just be tooling on top of an existing language rather than a custom syntax. By ditching the mainstream, you're not just losing parsers, you're throwing away profilers, debuggers, LSP support, and millions of crates. Just write a set of macros and a strict custom linter for Rust that forces the agent to write verify blocks and declare effects. Maintaining your own custom transpiler to Rust is gonna bleed all your dev time dry long before this project ever gets off the ground
- jasisz 7mo agoTooling tax is a real argument. But “just use macros + linting” usually gives you policy-flavored Rust, not a genuinely different language model. That works if enforcement is the goal; it works much less well if the artifact itself is meant to read differently.
- KurSix 7mo agoI get the readability point, but maybe look into embedded DSLs like they do in Lisp or Elixir? You get your custom, readable syntax inside a macro, but it compiles down to native code so you still get to keep all the tooling and perks of the host ecosystem