Cool! I kinda feel like these should be built-in. But this looks useful for closing the DX gap here.

Reasonably? Yes. Could probably be made to work well.

  $ bat 2.ts
  ───────────────
     1 │ function one() {
     2 │   let x = 1;
     3 │   defer (() => { throw new Error("thrown from one!"); })()
     4 │   x = 2;
     5 │ }
     6 │ one();
  ─────┴─────────

  $ node 2.js
  ~/healeycodes-typescript-go/2.js:29
            throw _errors_1[0];
            ^

  Error: thrown from one!
      at _callee_1 (/Users/andrew/Documents/GitHub/healeycodes-typescript-go/2.js:9:46)
      at /Users/andrew/Documents/GitHub/healeycodes-typescript-go/2.js:10:33
      at one (/Users/andrew/Documents/GitHub/healeycodes-typescript-go/2.js:22:31)
      at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/andrew/Documents/GitHub/healeycodes-typescript-go/2.js:34:1)
      at Module._compile (node:internal/modules/cjs/loader:1830:14)
      at Object..js (node:internal/modules/cjs/loader:1961:10)
      at Module.load (node:internal/modules/cjs/loader:1553:32)
      at Module._load (node:internal/modules/cjs/loader:1355:12)
      at wrapModuleLoad (node:internal/modules/cjs/loader:255:19)
      at Module.executeUserEntryPoint [as runMain (node:internal/modules/run_main:154:5)

  Node.js v24.15.0

Author here. I find try/finally verbose and vulnerable to mistakes. For me, it adds "function noise".

You're right that my post's algo does not handle this case (it's more of a toy to explain the basic cases).

> When I read Allan and Kennedy my impression was that vectorising arbitrary imperative code is a much harder problem than designing a language that only allows for vectorisable constructs to be expressed in the first place.

Yeah, I buy this.

> In my example that would produce different code, requiring a multiplication:

  lambda i: table[(phase0 + i*inc) % TABLE_LEN]

I think some compilers may lower this without the multiplication.. (e.g. turning it back into an induction variable) but with floats they may not be allowed to, since repeated addition and "phase0 + i*inc" are not strictly equal.

Editing the current line works because I brought in https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/readline.3.html towards the end so I could support editing, tab completion, and history.

IIRC readline uses a `char *` internally since the length of a user-edited line is fairly bounded.

Very cool. Currently working on the beginning of a small text editor so this part seemed interesting and was curious of any overlap. Thanks for the interesting post!

worth noting that you get basic line editing for "free" from kernels tty subsystem even if you don't use readline.

Yes, but it is really basic. Is it more than backspace? Most cursor key presses are just forwarded to the program as escape sequences.

Author here, and yeah, I agree. I skipped writing a parser altogether and just split on whitespace and `|` so that I could get to the interesting bits.

For side-projects, I have to ask myself if I'm writing a parser, or if I'm building something else; e.g. for a toy programming language, it's way more fun to start with an AST and play around, and come back to the parser if you really fall in love with it.

Author here, one of the fastest improvements I've seen is @cloud11665's idea here: https://x.com/cloud11665/status/1955958965046595699

You can annotate the code blocks in the README to get generic lisp syntax highlighting.

```lisp

(+ 1 2)

```

Thanks.

It's unfortunately enough of a bad fit for me to prefer no highlighting; my own fault, the price you pay for adding syntax.

Yes, it works on any process that makes a SYS_getrandom call.

Ah, this is a useful distinction. Thanks.