Programming Language Checklist by Colin McMillen, Jason Reed, and Elly Fong-Jones, 2011-10-10. You appear to be advocating a new: [x] functional [ ] imperative [ ] object-oriented [ ] procedural [ ] stack-based [ ] "multi-paradigm" [x] lazy [ ] eager [x] statically-typed [ ] dynamically-typed [x] pure [ ] impure [ ] 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 [x] Garbage collection is free [x] Computers have infinite memory [x] Nobody really needs: [x] concurrency [x] a REPL [x] debugger support [x] IDE support [x] I/O [x] to interact with code not written in your language [ ] The entire world speaks 7-bit ASCII [ ] Scaling up to large software projects will be easy [ ] 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): [x] comprehensible syntax [ ] semicolons [x] significant whitespace [ ] macros [ ] implicit type conversion [ ] explicit casting [x] type inference [ ] goto [ ] exceptions [x] closures [x] tail recursion [ ] coroutines [ ] reflection [ ] subtyping [ ] multiple inheritance [x] operator overloading [x] algebraic datatypes [x] recursive types [x] polymorphic types [ ] covariant array typing [x] monads [ ] dependent types [x] infix operators [x] nested comments [ ] multi-line strings [ ] regexes [ ] call-by-value [x] 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" [ ] The implementation is closed-source [ ] covered by patents [ ] not owned by you [ ] 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 [x] 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 [x] 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 [ ] 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 [x] Noone really believes that your language is faster than: [x] assembly [x] C [x] FORTRAN [x] Java [x] Ruby [ ] Prolog [ ] 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: examples/ [ ] We already have an unsafe imperative language [ ] We already have a safe imperative OO language [x] 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 [ ] 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: [ ] You have some interesting ideas, but this won't fly. [x] This is a bad language, and you should feel bad for inventing it. [ ] Programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it.