zlacker

>>Scramb+(OP)
I went looking for a single Markdown file I could dump into an LLM to "teach" it the language and found this one:

https://github.com/jordanhubbard/nanolang/blob/main/MEMORY.m...

Optimistically I dumped the whole thing into Claude Opus 4.5 as a system prompt to see if it could generate a one-shot program from it:

  llm -m claude-opus-4.5 \
    -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jordanhubbard/nanolang/refs/heads/main/MEMORY.md \
    'Build me a mandelbrot fractal CLI tool in this language' 
   > /tmp/fractal.nano

Here's the transcript for that. The code didn't work: https://gist.github.com/simonw/7847f022566d11629ec2139f1d109...

So I fired up Claude Code inside a checkout of the nanolang and told it how to run the compiler and let it fix the problems... which DID work. Here's that transcript:

https://gisthost.github.io/?9696da6882cb6596be6a9d5196e8a7a5...

And the finished code, with its output in a comment: https://gist.github.com/simonw/e7f3577adcfd392ab7fa23b1295d0...

So yeah, a good LLM can definitely figure out how to use this thing given access to the existing documentation and the ability to run that compiler.

>>simonw+6k
Oh, wow. I thought the control flow from the readme was a little annoying with the prefix -notation for bigger/smaller than;

    # Control flow
    if (> x 0) {
      (println "positive")
    } else {
      (println "negative or zero")
    }

But that's nothing compared to the scream for a case/switch-statement in the Mandelbrot example...

    # Gradient: " .:-=+*#%@"
        let gradient: string = " .:-=+*#%@"
        let gradient_len: int = 10
        let idx: int = (/ (* iter gradient_len) max_iter)
        if (>= idx gradient_len) {
            return "@"
        } else {
            if (== idx 0) {
                return " "
            } else {
                if (== idx 1) {
                    return "."
                } else {
                    if (== idx 2) {
                        return ":"
                    } else {
                        if (== idx 3) {
                            return "-"
                        } else {
                            if (== idx 4) {
                                return "="
                            } else {
                                if (== idx 5) {
                                    return "+"
                                } else {
                                    if (== idx 6) {
                                        return "*"
                                    } else {
                                        if (== idx 7) {
                                            return "#"
                                        } else {
                                            if (== idx 8) {
                                                return "%"
                                            } else {
                                                return "@"
                                            }
                                        }

>>e12e+8z
> scream for a case/switch-statement

Maybe I’m missing some context, but all that actually should be needed in the top-level else block is ‘gradient[idx]’. Pretty much anything else is going to be longer, harder to read, and less efficient.

>>antonv+wU
True, with early return - there's no need to actually nest with else.

Logically this still would be a case/switch though...

>>e12e+781
The point was that logically it would be an array lookup by index.

There's no need for any conditional construct here whatsoever.

You'll note it has already constructed a string in the right order to do that, but then copped out with the if-else.