> My main caveat would be that even a basic language needs a mechanism to glue related code together, objects, modules, structs with row-typing, existentials, not sure. But something.
While not perfect, I think ML's solution is pretty reasonable: a separate module language, whose complexity doesn't infect the core language.
There's 1ML where those languages are are unified into one language.
I'm aware of it. But my previous suggestions were in part shaped by the stated goals of Go's designers: to keep the language simple and easy to learn for non-language geeks. 1ML is really cool, but its type system can be intimidating: small vs. large types, incomplete inference, type-checking as elaboration into System F-omega, etc. OTOH, plain Damas-Milner is dead simple.
Another problem with 1ML is that it's only a research prototype for now, so we can't take it "for a spin". Given the 1ML inventor's main job, this is unlikely to change any time soon, unless some kind soul takes on the 1ML project lead.
OTOH maybe we will be surprised by the name of first language with working compiler to web assembly.
Ohhh that would be amazing, have you got inside information that you can share?
My main caveat would be that even a basic language needs a mechanism to glue related code together, objects, modules, structs with row-typing, existentials, not sure. But something.