developer-mike

This is true in the same sense that "a JIT" should really be "a JIT compiler."

Used as "a JIT," the term is given new meaning (to refer to a compiler implicitly). And used as "JIT language," its giving the term a new meating (to refer to the fact that the language designed to be JITted).

The language is, however, designed to be JITted. Languages are not designed in isolation.

Thanks! These are great resources for some cool programs and I will be sure to submit!

I'd absolutely be interested in that type of engagement, papers, and presentations.

I haven't written a technical paper before, but tried to make one on the testability here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hT761Cl2-r7cSJV4zR69PGAD...

Great question! I wanted to compile to js with a better interface than emscripten.

I can imagine so; But as a counterpoint, isn't it worse with forced implicit returns, where you never have a choice but to return something, and you have to scan the code carefully to see if it was required?

Maybe I'll add a 'noreturn' keyword; single expresions are automatically returned, and you can use a 'noreturn' statement to explicitly return void despite running a non-void expression.

This is covered in the FAQ. Partly, I allow it because there are no parsing ambiguities with it, so why not. But moreover, depending on type name & variable names, intelligently beginning or ending with an alias can lead to extremely fluent APIs. "that(expected Bool)Equals(actual Bool)" vs "writeTo(Linkable output)". This freedom can lead to more readable APIs in any language, not just English.

Of course, I do see where the complaints come from, and a part of me fears the day that someone releases a wake linter which requires aliases to follow the type. If that were to happen I think I'd nix the idea in favor of unity in the community.

Thanks! Great comment, I'd planned on adding implicit returns, and may copy rust on that one!

Correct, there is runtime typesafety in javascript. However, type-safety is a spectrum; truthiness and falsiness for instance is not very typesafe. I will revise this to be clearer (your nitpick is valid) but I think the heart of the issue is still 100% correct.

Thanks! I think with programming languages its important that it looks just strange enough. Luckily I have a few simple ideas that drive most of those unique syntaxes, hopefully making the uniqueness both justifiable and attention-grabbing. Otherwise, its just the language that I want to program in every day, and I hope others feel similarly.

Good memory!

Yeah, I had posted that to Reddit, where it didn't do too well, but someone posted it here where (for some reason!) it did much better.

Figured in addition to the story of creating Wake, I'd post the home page so people could look into it more!

Hey! Creator of Wake here.

This looks like a nice language! Lots of syntactic niceties, and it looks extremely feature complete.

Nice work! I'm not surprised you learned a lot given how many features it supports!