4 comments

  • Kuyawa 4 minutes ago
    I like it. I consider myself picky with regards to weird syntax in new languages and this is terse and very readable. Approved!
  • onlyrealcuzzo 13 minutes ago
    Just trying to offer some help here, not an attack:

    ``` G# brings Go-, Kotlin-, and Swift-style ergonomics — packages, func, data class, nullable handling with if let, structured concurrency with scope — to the .NET runtime. Source compiles directly to managed assemblies. ```

    This is a decent description - but as someone also building a language in a similar space - who isn't super familiar with the .NET runtime... My first question is... Why not C#?

    I'm by no means a C# expert, but I thought most of this was supposed to be in C#. C# is not terribly un-ergonomic, and Go is simple, but not really ergonomic except for Goroutines...

    `packages` and `func` being the first two selling points is alarming. Sure, people probably prefer `fn foo() -> Dog` over `Dog foo()`. No one's picking a language for that. C# has namespaces... C# has `record` and `record struct`. C# has not-ideal nil handling, but it still has it. I'm not convinced `if let` is better enough to be a selling point - a lot of people don't like that!

    Your main selling point seems like `scope` and your concurrency model vs C#, but C#'s is not exactly terrible...

    Rich Hickey has a joke about semi-colons in language design, and your main pitch seems to sell yourself short.

  • HeavyStorm 51 minutes ago
    Looks nice, congratulations.

    I feel like we've done full circle. Languages are back to being (mostly) procedural. I'm not sure I like it, but it seems that this is what people prefer.

    Personally, I'd rather see something like dependant types on a dotnet language. An addition, not just a simplification.

  • chews 50 minutes ago