This is the question that prompts this meta: Is my language easy/hard enough? How badly is it designed?. Paraphrased:
Here is an example or a factorial with recursion:
:define:&0:factorial :param:~0:static :case :lower@equal:cons@1 :case:end :scope :return:cons@1 :scope:end :scope :define:~0:static :define:~1:static :require:static :call:static@sub:^~0:1 :store:~0 :call:&-1:~0 :store:~1 :call:static@sum:^~0:~1 :store:~0 :return:~0 :scope:end :define:end
&-1refers to the function itself,
^~0fetches the var in the scope above and
@is to divide the parameters.
How bad is this language?
Any idea on how to make it more "pretty" is welcome.
There was another question a while back, but I can't seem to find it right now...
So, this question is requesting that we review the code for ease of use, but it's not really asking for a review of the code, it's asking for a review of the design of the language. So, there are a few issues here as I see it.
- We don't know anything about the language in question. There is no link to any kind of documentation. How do we know if the code in question is good code if we don't have any standard to go by?
- We've asserted before that if there is no compiler, then it is hypothetical code.
- It clearly falls into the grey area of reviewing design.
So, is this question on topic? I've made a case against it here, but I'm still hesitant about casting a close vote on it.
Update: This question has since been closed as "Primarily Opinion Based". I'd be interested to hear from the voters what their reasoning was.