Language Design Checklist for Odin

checklist.txt

You appear to be advocating a new:
[ ] functional  [x] imperative  [ ] object-oriented  [x] procedural [ ] stack-based
[ ] "multi-paradigm"  [ ] lazy  [x] eager  [x] statically-typed  [ ] dynamically-typed
[ ] pure  [x] impure  [ ] non-hygienic  [ ] visual  [ ] beginner-friendly
[ ] non-programmer-friendly  [ ] completely incomprehensible
programming language.  Your language will not work.  Here is why it will not work.

You appear to believe that:
[ ] Syntax is what makes programming difficult
[ ] Garbage collection is free                [ ] Computers have infinite memory
[ ] Nobody really needs:
    [ ] concurrency  [x] a REPL  [ ] debugger support  [ ] IDE support  [ ] I/O
    [ ] to interact with code not written in your language
[ ] The entire world speaks 7-bit ASCII
[ ] Scaling up to large software projects will be easy
[ ] Convincing programmers to adopt a new language will be easy
[ ] Convincing programmers to adopt a language-specific IDE will be easy
[ ] Programmers love writing lots of boilerplate
[ ] Specifying behaviors as "undefined" means that programmers won't rely on them
[ ] "Spooky action at a distance" makes programming more fun

Unfortunately, your language (has/lacks):
[Y] comprehensible syntax  [optional] semicolons  [N] significant whitespace  [N] macros
[few] implicit type conversion  [Y] explicit casting  [Y] type inference
[N] goto  [N] exceptions  [N] closures  [N] tail recursion  [N] coroutines
[Y] reflection  [Y `using`] subtyping  [N (technically)] multiple inheritance  [N] operator overloading
[Y Algol style, not ML] algebraic datatypes  [Y, erm... pointers?] recursive types  [Y] polymorphic types
[N] covariant array typing  [N] monads  [N] dependent types
[Y] infix operators  [Y] nested comments  [Y] multi-line strings  [N] regexes
[Y] call-by-value  [Y] call-by-name  [N] call-by-reference  [N] call-cc

The following philosophical objections apply:
[x] Programmers should not need to understand category theory to write "Hello, World!"
[x] Programmers should not develop RSI from writing "Hello, World!"
[ ] The most significant program written in your language is its own compiler
[x] The most significant program written in your language isn't even its own compiler <<< compiler is still C++ >>>
[to-be-written] No language spec <<< will have it for 1.0 >>>
[ ] "The implementation is the spec"
[ ] The implementation is closed-source  [ ] covered by patents  [ ] not owned by you
[?] Your type system is unsound  [ ] Your language cannot be unambiguously parsed
[ ] a proof of same is attached
[ ] invoking this proof crashes the compiler
[x] The name of your language makes it impossible to find on Google
[?] Interpreted languages will never be as fast as C
[?] Compiled languages will never be "extensible"
[x] Writing a compiler that understands English is AI-complete
[ ] Your language relies on an optimization which has never been shown possible
[ ] There are less than 100 programmers on Earth smart enough to use your language
[ ] ____________________________ takes exponential time
[ ] ____________________________ is known to be undecidable

Your implementation has the following flaws:
[ ] CPUs do not work that way
[ ] RAM does not work that way
[ ] VMs do not work that way
[ ] Compilers do not work that way
[ ] Compilers cannot work that way
[ ] Shift-reduce conflicts in parsing seem to be resolved using rand()
[ ] You require the compiler to be present at runtime
[ ] You require the language runtime to be present at compile-time
[ ] Your compiler errors are completely inscrutable
[x] Dangerous behavior is only a warning <<< manual memory management >>>
[ ] The compiler crashes if you look at it funny
[ ] The VM crashes if you look at it funny
[ ] You don't seem to understand basic optimization techniques
[ ] You don't seem to understand basic systems programming
[ ] You don't seem to understand pointers
[ ] You don't seem to understand functions

Additionally, your marketing has the following problems:
[ ] Unsupported claims of increased productivity
[x] Unsupported claims of greater "ease of use" <<< "Joy of Programming" >>>
[ ] Obviously rigged benchmarks <<< See https://www.gingerbill.org/article/2024/01/22/comparing-language-benchmarks/ >>>
[ ] Graphics, simulation, or crypto benchmarks where your code just calls
    handwritten assembly through your FFI
[ ] String-processing benchmarks where you just call PCRE
[ ] Matrix-math benchmarks where you just call BLAS
[x] Noone really believes that your language is faster than:
    [x] assembly  [same-ish] C  [same-ish] FORTRAN  [ ] Java  [ ] Ruby  [ ] Prolog
[ ] Rejection of orthodox programming-language theory without justification
[ ] Rejection of orthodox systems programming without justification
[ ] Rejection of orthodox algorithmic theory without justification
[ ] Rejection of basic computer science without justification

Taking the wider ecosystem into account, I would like to note that:
[ ] Your complex sample code would be one line in: _______________________
[ish] We already have an unsafe imperative language
[ ] We already have a safe imperative OO language
[ ] We already have a safe statically-typed eager functional language
[ ] You have reinvented Lisp but worse
[ ] You have reinvented Javascript but worse
[ ] You have reinvented Java but worse
[ ] You have reinvented C++ but worse
[ ] You have reinvented PHP but worse
[ ] You have reinvented PHP better, but that's still no justification
[ ] You have reinvented Brainfuck but non-ironically

In conclusion, this is what I think of you:
[ ] You have some interesting ideas, but this won't fly.
[ ] This is a bad language, and you should feel bad for inventing it.
[ ] Programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it.