You appear to be advocating a new functional, imperative, procedural, stack-based, eager, statically typed, pure programming language. Your language will not work. Here is why it will not work. Unfortunately, your language has comprehensible syntax, significant whitespace, type inference, closures, tail recursion, algebraic datatypes, polymorphic types, nested comments, multi-line strings, and call-by-value. (It lacks almost everything else.) The most significant program written in your language isn’t even its own compiler. There is no language spec; the implementation is the spec. Compiled languages will never be “extensible”. Your compiler errors are completely inscrutable. No one really believes that your language is faster than assembly, C, or FORTRAN. We already have a safe statically typed eager functional language. You have reinvented Forth but non-ironically. In conclusion, you have some interesting ideas, but this won’t fly.
You appear to be advocating a new functional, imperative, procedural, stack-based, eager, statically typed, pure programming language. Your language will not work. Here is why it will not work. Unfortunately, your language has comprehensible syntax, significant whitespace, type inference, closures, tail recursion, algebraic datatypes, polymorphic types, nested comments, multi-line strings, and call-by-value. (It lacks almost everything else.) The most significant program written in your language isn’t even its own compiler. There is no language spec; the implementation is the spec. Compiled languages will never be “extensible”. Your compiler errors are completely inscrutable. No one really believes that your language is faster than assembly, C, or FORTRAN. We already have a safe statically typed eager functional language. You have reinvented Forth but non-ironically. In conclusion, you have some interesting ideas, but this won’t fly.
And the runtime isn’t even done yet. :P