The Plastic Programing Language (version 2)

You appear to be advocating a new imperative, eager and statically-typed programming language. Your language will not work. Here is why it will not work.

You appear to believe that that syntax is what makes programming difficult, that nobody really needs a REPL, debugger support or IDE support, that the entire world speaks 7-bit ASCII, that scaling up to large software projects will be easy, that convincing programmers to adopt a new language will be easy, that programmers love writing lots of boilerplate, that specifying behaviors as "undefined" means that programmers won't rely on them and that "Spooky action at a distance" makes programming more fun.

Unfortunately, your language has comprehensible syntax, has semicolons, lacks significant whitespace, lacks macros, has implicit type conversion, has explicit casting, has type inference, lacks goto, lacks exceptions, lacks closures, has tail recursion, lacks coroutines, lacks reflection, has subtyping, lacks multiple inheritance, lacks operator overloading, has algebraic datatypes, has recursive types, has polymorphic types, lacks covariant array typing, lacks monads, lacks dependent types, has infix operators, lacks nested comments, has multi-line strings, lacks regexes, has call-by-value, lacks call-by-name, lacks call-by-reference and lacks call-cc.

The following philosophical objections apply:

• The most significant program written in your language isn't even its own compiler
• No language spec
• The name of your language makes it impossible to find on Google
• Compiled languages will never be "extensible"

Your implementation has the following flaws:

• Your compiler errors are completely inscrutable
• The compiler crashes if you look at it funny
• You don't seem to understand basic optimization techniques
• You don't seem to understand basic systems programming
• You don't seem to understand functions.

Additionally, your marketing has the following problems:

• Noone really believes that your language is faster than assembly, C nor FORTRAN.

Taking the wider ecosystem into account, I would like to note that your complex sample code would be one line in: rust and we already have an unsafe imperative language.

In conclusion, I think you have some interesting ideas, but this won't fly, this is a bad language, and you should feel bad for inventing it and programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it.