You appear to be advocating a new:
[ ] functional [ ] imperative [ ] object-oriented [x] procedural
[ ] stack-based [x] "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
[x] Nobody really needs:
[x] concurrency [x] a REPL [x] debugger support [x] 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
[ ] 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): [Lacks => L, Has => H]
[L] comprehensible syntax [L] semicolons
[L] significant whitespace [L] macros
[L] implicit type conversion [H] explicit casting
[H] type inference [H] goto [ ] exceptions [x] closures
[L] tail recursion [L] coroutines [L(planned)] reflection
[L] subtyping [L] multiple inheritance
[L(planned)] operator overloading [H] algebraic datatypes
[H] recursive types [L] polymorphic types [L] covariant array typing
[L] monads [L] dependent types [H] infix operators
[H] nested comments [L] multi-line strings [library] regexes
[H] call-by-value [L] call-by-name [L] call-by-reference
[L] 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
[ ] No language spec
[X] Incomplete language spec
[ ] "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
[ ] 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
[X] 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
[ ] 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 (Benchmarks? What are those)
[ ] 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 [x] C [x] FORTRAN [x] Java [ ] Ruby [ ] Prolog
[x] Rejection of orthodox programming-language theory without
justification
[x] 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:
[x] Your complex sample code would be one line in: _______________________
[x] 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
[x] 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.
[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.
Side note, this isn't something serious. It's a tongue in cheek parody of this old usenet spam-fighting idea checklist meme: http://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt
