Do we associate syntax with semantics? Would you find ML syntax with dynamic types weird, or a lisp with Java-style var type declarations?
Related Posts
Bootstrapping a language can be immensely satisfying.
I've added the ability to define stub types in the Garden stdlib and suddenly I don't need to special-case Int or String! They're just normal type declarations.
Playing with optional type signatures in Python, I realise that the return type is the most important to me.
I'd much rather have a function with only a return type instead of a function with only parameter types. It's often quick to add too.
I'm experimenting with syntax in examples. I don't really like Rust's `assert(inc(1) == 2)` syntax, I find it a little distracting.
I'm trying `inc(1) //-> 2`. The comment is rendered differently, and there's nothing before the sample code. What do you think?