Comment by georgewfraser

You appear to be advocating a new:

[ ] functional [X] imperative [X] object-oriented [X] procedural [X] stack-based

[ ] "multi-paradigm" [ ] lazy [ ] 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:

[X] Syntax is what makes programming difficult

[ ] Garbage collection is free [ ] Computers have infinite memory

[ ] Nobody really needs:

    [X] concurrency  [ ] a REPL  [ ] debugger support  [ ] IDE support  [ ] I/O

    [X] to interact with code not written in your language

[ ] The entire world speaks 7-bit ASCII

[X] Scaling up to large software projects will be easy

[X] Convincing programmers to adopt a new language will be easy

[X] 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

[X] implicit type conversion [ ] explicit casting [ ] type inference

[ ] goto [ ] exceptions [ ] closures [X] tail recursion [ ] coroutines

[ ] reflection [X] subtyping [X] multiple inheritance [ ] operator overloading

[X] algebraic datatypes [ ] recursive types [ ] polymorphic types

[X] 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

[X] The most significant program written in your language isn't even its own compiler

[X] No language spec

[X] "The implementation is the spec"

   [X] The implementation is closed-source  [ ] covered by patents  [ ] not owned by you

[X] 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"

[ ] 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:

[X] Unsupported claims of increased productivity

[X] 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: _______________________

[ ] We already have an unsafe imperative language

[X] 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

[X] 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:

[X] 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.