Xag

Asked

I've seen languages with only positives. No negatives.

They most likely have flaws, but weren't written down.

To be honest too, we didn't write down all flaws of Xag, but we did write down the most major. At least we wrote them down. We don't want you to regret our language.

Is the "honesty" performed?

Answering honestly. No, it isn't.

Though, you don't have to believe us. Wait, why the fuck does that sound like guilt-tripping? 🤣. Oh shit, now this sounds like fake casualness? Whatever 🤣

What major things does Xag not have, that others do?

More than one file, a standard library, and any way to reuse a shape.

A program is one file. export and program are words the lexer knows and the parser refuses, so there are no modules, no imports and no libraries — not other people's, not your own.

What a program can reach is print.stdout, read.stdin, the arguments it was handed, and a few words that count or fill a list. No files, no network, no clock, no randomness, no square root.

Nothing turns a number into text. Handing an int64 to a str is refused, and nothing is provided that does the turning.

A many is a fixed length, settled where it is made. It holds one level — a many of a many is refused — and it cannot be printed whole.

There are no generics, no interfaces, no traits and no methods. A function that works for two types is written twice.

There are no threads and nothing asynchronous. There is no way to call C, and none for C to call it.

The tooling is one binary. No package manager, no formatter, no language server, no editor support, no debugger.

Each of those was checked against the compiler rather than read off a plan, which means the list is only as current as the day it was written. Some of them are decisions nobody has made and some are simply not built, and this page does not say which, because saying so would be a promise about work rather than a fact about the language.