You appear to be advocating a new:
- functional
- imperative
- object-oriented
- procedural
- stack-based
- "multi-paradigm"
- lazy
- eager
- statically-typed
- dynamically-typed
- pure
- 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
- 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):
- comprehensible syntax
- semicolons
- significant whitespace
- macros
- implicit type conversion
- explicit casting
- type inference
- goto
- exceptions
- closures
- tail recursion
- coroutines
- reflection
- subtyping
- multiple inheritance
- operator overloading
- algebraic datatypes
- recursive types
- polymorphic types
- covariant array typing
- monads
- dependent types
- infix operators
- nested comments
- multi-line strings
- regexes
- call-by-value
- call-by-name
- call-by-reference
- call-cc
The following philosophical objections apply:
- Programmers should not need to understand category theory to write "Hello, World!"
- Programmers should not develop RSI from writing "Hello, World!"
- The most significant program written in your language is its own compiler
- The most significant program written in your language isn't even its own compiler
- No language spec
- "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
- 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"
- 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
- Dangerous behavior is only a warning
- 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
- Unsupported claims of greater "ease of use"
- Obviously rigged 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
- Noone really believes that your language is faster than:
- assembly
- C
- 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: Haskell
- 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.
lol, can you think about add some features e.g. multi-dispatch as SQL-like ("
from function
| where args[0] = 1
| select { 1 }
") or math-like ("
F: 1 -> 1.
") (if your language lacks multi-dispatch), junctions (quantum superpositions) and named arguments/parameters?