• WAY back in the annals of computer history
  • the Dragon Book – the definitive book, but very much a classroom book (VERY dry reading)
  • SICP – looking at how to program (and thus why programming languages are built the way they are)
• much more recent
  • Crafting Interpreters – from the author of Game Programming Patterns

As someone who's spent way too much time languishing over picking the perfect parsing technique for my own language, I'm actually gonna go against the norm and recommend figuring out the parser later. Instead you should start with building your language's ASTs directly in memory and then from there, either build a backend for converting ASTs to LLVM IR, or what I'd actually do first is just start with an interpreter executing directly on the ASTs. This way you figure out the mechanics of your language, and then when they're well established, you can worry about your syntax, and how to parse it into ASTs. There's a lot you learn about your language by doing it this way that you don't necessarily think about if you just start from the parser. It also let's you see real progress/output sooner which I think is key for staying motivated on these kinds of projects.

When it comes time to actually write the parser, I recommend either just hand crafting a parser directly, or using an existing parser generator tool like gnu bison, etc. I do not recommend trying to write your own parser generator (e.g. LR(k), LALR, LL(k), etc.) unless your language's syntax is particularly simple. Speaking from experience, real languages have many common syntax features we take for granted that are hard to deal with in parser generators. In my case, I spent years bogged down exploring/implementing several state of the art parser algorithms (I'm a fan of generalized parsing, so Earley, GLR, SRNGLR, GLL, etc), and really only recently made any decent progress when I decided to trash them and just hand write a dumb recursive-descent-esque parser. Once things are working, it's pretty easy to go back and swap out the parser if you want something more fancy.

I've been following the book Crafting Interpreters which makes a language slightly similar to lua but with bracketed blocks and other small changes. This is a stack based interpreter which feels like a great place to start. There's also register based which seems to use more of a word code to bytecode approach but couldn't tell you much else the differences. I'd highly recommend building an interpreter first as this is a virtual machine and you can make your own fake assembly with less consequences. Writing a real native code compiler is a lot harder if you don't have that baseline under your belt, but you do you if you're confident in your knowhow!

I guess the biggest takeaway i've come across is you can make functions without too much headache, but closures are much harder, you need to move local variables off the stack and onto the heap. Not sure how register handles it

I definitely recommends that you start learning about the LL(k), LALR, and perhaps even Earley Parser algorithms. I am assuming you have picked up a little bit on LL(1) parser and some basic lexer, so mastering the parser algorithms are basically the next stop for you.

Once you get the grasp of those things, you are well on your way to designing a programming language.

What do you wish you had known before you set out?

If you plan to create an imperative language: If you want to make everthing an expression make sure you understand all implications.