I came away with a different impression to you: in the past there were good reasons to develop their own language; they recognised that those reasons no longer exist; they used modern tools to dig their way out from underneath the accumulated debt.
Nowadays we have open-source runtimes, .net running on multiple platforms, and componentised tools like Roslyn. It is easy to forget that the .net tooling from 10+ years ago was much more limited.
Writing you own language is an unusual approach, so descriptions of dealing with that kind of technical debt are rare. I thought this article was valuable and interesting.
Nowadays we have open-source runtimes, .net running on multiple platforms, and componentised tools like Roslyn. It is easy to forget that the .net tooling from 10+ years ago was much more limited.
Writing you own language is an unusual approach, so descriptions of dealing with that kind of technical debt are rare. I thought this article was valuable and interesting.