This article is bugging me for some reason. I don't disagree with it. It's certainly easier to make a language now, even more so than in 2016 when this article was published. But it feels like saying "it's easier to make a bridge than ever". That statement isn't wrong. I'd much rather make a bridge with modern technology. But it's still a damn hard task.

And citing parsing isn't a great example. Parser generators have been around for ages. And they're usually not the hard part anyways. Defining a simple grammar and parsing it, even manually, isn't that terrible of a task. Getting decent error messages and figuring out recovery? That's trickier.

Code generation has certainly gotten easier. But you still need to go through the process of figuring out how to lower your abstractions. My language is still extremely basic but I've still had to map my high level types and control structures down to WebAssembly. LLVM won't do that for you.

There's also more that your average user expects if you want a language that people use. Decent tooling is important, so a language server and some syntax highlighting packages in different editors. Good error messages. Decent type inference. Most of these you can eschew in the first few iterations of your language but eventually you'll need them.

I feel bad criticizing this post because writing a language has been one of the most instructive experiences I've had. I've learned so much about code generation, typechecking, the WASM spec, etc. But it's still a lot of tough work to get to something people can use. I'm not sure parser generators and LLVM make it that much easier.