Quick Review (WARNING: contains controversial opinions!)
Good:
- "minimal usable set of keywords and control structures"
- "simple cooperation with C"
- "no access to files on physical drive"
- reasonably terse syntax (except for "end instead of braces")
Bad:
- The name of the language, I don't know how to pronounce it and I can't remember how to type it. Rename to "Boa" or similar.
- The name of the author, it's a bad transliteration. Rename to "Christoph Shoechuck" or similar.
- "focus on targeting UNIX-like operating system"
- "intended to be used with shell scripts" - shell scripts are brittle and awful to write
- end instead of braces
What:
- isn't AOT and JIT contradictory?
- isn't interfacing with C and "no access to files" contradictory?
Conclusion:
I like a simple, small and embeddable language, but I don't want to embed anything in shell scripts and I don't want to depend on UNIX.
Good:
- "minimal usable set of keywords and control structures"
- "simple cooperation with C"
- "no access to files on physical drive"
- reasonably terse syntax (except for "end instead of braces")
Bad:
- The name of the language, I don't know how to pronounce it and I can't remember how to type it. Rename to "Boa" or similar.
- The name of the author, it's a bad transliteration. Rename to "Christoph Shoechuck" or similar.
- "focus on targeting UNIX-like operating system"
- "intended to be used with shell scripts" - shell scripts are brittle and awful to write
- end instead of braces
What:
- isn't AOT and JIT contradictory?
- isn't interfacing with C and "no access to files" contradictory?
Conclusion:
I like a simple, small and embeddable language, but I don't want to embed anything in shell scripts and I don't want to depend on UNIX.