Yeah it's a lot easier to reason about languages that are as dumb as a sack of rocks - they're so well-defined!
Basically just syntax. Add a bit of syntax highlighting and you know EXACTLY what's going on.
Which is my point.
I look forward to languages that make it trivial to do super hard stuff. If debugging them is hard, make it easy to ask them what's going on. (Also difficult today, again, because they are as dumb as a sack of rocks.)
"I'm going to remodel my nasal cavity to accommodate a swarm of bees" is a well-defined goal - it just isn't something you'd want to do, even if you've got access to tooling that makes it straightforward.
Sure it is well defined, but the resulting performance of the program isn't necessarily deterministic, it will be super sensitive to whatever else is going on in the machine as well as whatever else the program is doing.
Why would you want to add a syntactical feature that duplicates the services the OS is already providing and makes the performance of the program less predictable and consistent?
Basically just syntax. Add a bit of syntax highlighting and you know EXACTLY what's going on.
Which is my point.
I look forward to languages that make it trivial to do super hard stuff. If debugging them is hard, make it easy to ask them what's going on. (Also difficult today, again, because they are as dumb as a sack of rocks.)
Every example I gave was super well-defined.