You appear to be advocating a new: [ ] functional [ ] imperative [ ] object-oriented [ ] procedural [ ] stack-based [X] "multi-paradigm" [ ] lazy [ ] eager [ ] statically-typed [ ] dynamically-typed [ ] pure [ ] impure [X] non-hygienic [ ] visual [X] 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 [X] Scaling up to large software projects will be easy [X] 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 [X] significant whitespace [ ] macros [ ] implicit type conversion [X] explicit casting [X] type inference [ ] goto [ ] exceptions [ ] closures [ ] tail recursion [ ] coroutines [ ] reflection [ ] subtyping [ ] multiple inheritance [X] operator overloading [ ] algebraic datatypes [ ] recursive types [ ] polymorphic types [ ] covariant array typing [X] monads [ ] dependent types [X] infix operators [X] nested comments [ ] multi-line strings [X] regexes [X] call-by-value [ ] call-by-name [ ] call-by-reference [ ] call-cc The following philosophical objections apply: [X] 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 [ ] No language spec [X] "The implementation is the spec" [ ] 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 [X] 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 [X] The compiler crashes if you look at it funny [ ] The VM crashes if you look at it funny [X] You don't seem to understand basic optimization techniques [X] You don't seem to understand basic systems programming [X] You don't seem to understand pointers [X] 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 [X] Graphics, simulation, or crypto benchmarks where your code just calls handwritten assembly through your FFI [X] 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 [X] C [X] FORTRAN [X] 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: _______________________ [X] We already have an unsafe imperative language [X] We already have a safe imperative OO language [X] We already have a safe statically-typed eager functional language [X] You have reinvented Lisp but worse [ ] You have reinvented Javascript but worse [ ] You have reinvented Java but worse [ ] You have reinvented C++ but worse [X] 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. [X] This is a bad language, and you should feel bad for inventing it. [X] Programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it.