Yeah that's fair. It's got "fn main()", types like "i32", and uses braces. More Rust-like than Python to be honest. The "Python-like" part is mostly wishful thinking about readability. Should've just called it "minimalist systems language" or something

I suspect that was in the initial prompt that was used to generate this and the LLM decided Rust syntax was preferable.

Right now there’s intentionally no stdlib, so yes, printing would ultimately boil down to a direct write syscall. The idea is that the core language stays as thin as possible and anything higher level lives on top of that, either as compiler intrinsics or a very small stdlib later. For the MVP I wanted to make the boundary explicit instead of pretending there’s no syscall underneath. So “Hello world” will work, but in a very boring, low level way at first

How do you know this? It looks more like some kid’s homework

It's definitely odd that someone who allegedly wrote a complete compiler in Python would describe something that is obviously Rust syntax as Python-like.

I doubt an LLM would have written this:

       # Parameter in Stack-Slots laden (für MVP: nur Register-Args)
        # Semantic Analyzer markiert Params mit is_param=True
        # Wir müssen jetzt die first 6 Args aus Registern laden
        # TODO: Implementiere Parameter-Handling
        # for now: Params bleiben in Registern (keine lokalen Vars mit gleichem Namen)

Also I love that I can understand all of this comment without actually understanding German.

The author's said it's "a learning project in compiler design", so I guess solving problems of C wasn't one its goals.

Thanks, that's fair criticism. You're right about the while-loop thing, that code was very naive and did break with nesting. I actually ran into exactly the pain you described and ended up fixing it the hard way. It was one of the moments where I realized how quickly you start fighting the architecture instead of working on the language itself. About the bigger point: I agree with you, and that's kind of the direction I'm drifting towards now. I'm not really interested in competing with Zig feature-for-feature. What I'm more interested in is whether there's a different mental model for system programming that feels simpler. I originally planned to add pointers, but they gave me massive headaches. That was exactly the point where "low-level" and "simple" started to completely collide in my brain. The more I tried to make pointers feel clean, the more complex everything became. So the current idea I'm exploring is: what if you could write system-level code without having to think in memory addresses at all, but still keep things explicit and predictable? More like thinking in values and state changes, instead of locations in memory. That's still very much an experiment, but that's the "missing opinion" I'm trying to test