https://www.famicol.in/language_checklist.html
I will start the ball rolling. Any more to check?
The name of your language makes it impossible to find on Google
3 Likes
You require the compiler to be present at runtime
I don’t see why that is bad though. Julia also provides the compiler at runtime, so it is available.
1 Like
significant whitespace
(For example: [1 -1] ≠[1 - 1].)
Not as bad as Python, though.
1 Like
Garbage collection is free
“Spooky action at a distance” makes programming more fun (type piracy)
Matrix-math benchmarks where you just call BLAS
No language spec
“The implementation is the spec”
5 Likes
I don’t understand why not having an (independent, formal) specification is considered unusual for a new language.
It is pretty much impossible to create a nontrivial and novel language with a finalized spec. Either it is going to be super-simple like Scheme, a \epsilon improvement on an existing language, or take 15–20 years until someone bothers to do an official spec (eg C or Common Lisp).
When done too early, all specifications do is tie down the best minds working on the language for years, essentially stalling all development.
5 Likes
On the other hand, Julia disproving these is impressive:
Interpreted languages will never be as fast as C
Compiled languages will never be “extensible”
9 Likes
That Google works so hard to show everyone what they want to see might put everyone in a bubble and lead to the collapse of civilization, but on the other hand I actually don’t have much trouble finding results about Julia the language.
3 Likes