Once you have an intuition, you can use yacc.
I'm not a fan of parser generators. I find them restrictive. It is also notable most mainstream languages do not use tools like YACC, they have "handmade" parsers and compilers.
This may seem like I'm suggesting pie-in-the-sky approach from the ground up for something that may never need such control. Could be. But I don't feel like learning YACC is easier than learning how to parse anything in general. I think YACC and so on are holding people back from truly expressing themselves with custom languages, and after all that was the whole point of them writing a language or wasn't it?
Now, let's omit that for a moment. Let's say that after having implemented your language after years of work, now for some reason you got 1 prospect user.
That person will ask you about: syntax highlighting, linting, code navigation, testing, packaging, documentation, operating systems/architecture support, etc. Who is going to contribute all that if you are busy writing everything by hand?
Unless you have as much time as Terry Davis, you are better off starting by piggybacking on something that exists. Then, once you have an idea that scales, you can convince other people to help you and have a successful project. Then you can have a viable ecosystem that people can comfortably join.
The real problem about building a compiler is everything else but not parsing. Parsing is the easiest part. Once you've written a view recursive descent parsers you will probably agree.
The parser for syntax highlighting is probably a different one than the parser for AST generation and compilation. So is a parser for batch compilation different to one for incremental compilation. Even the syntax might be different.
This has nothing to do with using a parser generator or not.
Syntaxes that are easy to parse via recursive descent are probably also the ones that are easiest to parse for humans.
Despite this intuition it's all actually very learnable and my experience is that using a parser generator makes no sense in a professional context and very little sense in a hobby/toy project context.
Better to have it happen knowing you've mastered some subject.
It's a learning exercise. Sure, if you want to learn to use yacc, or whatever, use yacc. I don't think time efficiency is a useful metric when the overwhelming majority of people is this space aren't doing it for their job, or even because they 'need' to create a new language.
Ultimately you could just use python, it'll be faster and more fully featured.
Alternatively, you iterate using a cheaper method and once you reach a point in which you are content with the syntax, you can consider writing a compiler for it.
You can also avoid iterating on the syntax so you can ship a compiler as fast as possible, but users won't like the syntax and won't use your language.
For example, one can prove that any yacc-generated parser never infinite loops and runs in O(n) (at least for the actual parsing; you can write custom code in actions that runs when a construct has been parsed, and of course you can write whatever you want there).
If you hand-write a grammar like the following, you'll end up with an infinite loop without restructuring the grammar; such restructuring is of course much easier if you have written the grammar out, rather than having it implicitly exist in code.
Expr ::= Expr '[' Expr ']'
Expr ::= Name
Expr ::= Int
Stmt ::= Expr ';'
Stmt ::= Name '=' Expr ';'
Stmt ::= Expr '[' Expr ']' '=' Expr ';'
Expr ::= Expr '[' Expr ']'
Expr ::= Name
Expr ::= Int
[0]: https://swtch.com/~rsc/regexp/regexp1.html [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20210507215636/http://web.cs.dal...
Trivial when actually writing the code. And your example of infinite left recursion is basics in parser theory. No one in their right mind would write a hanging program like that, at least not for long.