Please fill out each of the following points in this checklist.
Once you are done, just click "Generate" for your automatically generated rant!

or choose your options below.

Point #1: You appear to be advocating a new:

• functional
• imperative
• object-oriented
• procedural
• stack-based
• "multi-paradigm"
• lazy
• eager
• statically-typed
• dynamically-typed
• pure
• 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.

Point #2: 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
• 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

Point #3: Unfortunately, your language (has/lacks):

• N/A has lacks: comprehensible syntax
• N/A has lacks: semicolons
• N/A has lacks: significant whitespace
• N/A has lacks: macros
• N/A has lacks: implicit type conversion
• N/A has lacks: explicit casting
• N/A has lacks: type inference
• N/A has lacks: goto
• N/A has lacks: exceptions
• N/A has lacks: closures
• N/A has lacks: tail recursion
• N/A has lacks: coroutines
• N/A has lacks: reflection
• N/A has lacks: subtyping
• N/A has lacks: multiple inheritance
• N/A has lacks: operator overloading
• N/A has lacks: algebraic datatypes
• N/A has lacks: recursive types
• N/A has lacks: polymorphic types
• N/A has lacks: covariant array typing
• N/A has lacks: monads
• N/A has lacks: dependent types
• N/A has lacks: infix operators
• N/A has lacks: nested comments
• N/A has lacks: multi-line strings
• N/A has lacks: regexes
• N/A has lacks: call-by-value
• N/A has lacks: call-by-name
• N/A has lacks: call-by-reference
• N/A has lacks: call-cc

Point #4: 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
• The most significant program written in your language isn't even its own compiler
• No language spec
• "The implementation is the spec." It is:
  • closed-source
  • covered by patents
  • not owned by you
• Your type system is unsound
• Your language cannot be unambiguously parsed and
  • 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
• 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

Point #5: 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
• The VM crashes if you look at it funny
• 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

Point #6: Additionally, your marketing has the following problems:

• Unsupported claims of increased productivity
• 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
• Noone really believes that your language is faster than
  • assembly
  • C
  • FORTRAN
  • 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

Point #7: Taking the wider ecosystem into account, I would like to note that:

• Your complex sample code would be one line in:
• 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
• 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

Point #8: In conclusion, this is what I think of you:

• You have some interesting ideas, but this won't fly.
• This is a bad language, and you should feel bad for inventing it.
• Programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it.