I'm going to call B.S. on this approach. When you look at the language it looks suspiciously like most other programming languages in terms of syntax.
What it's telling us is that the evidence is that most people kind of like their own programming language and want to modify nits.
The designers are not going to find anything different meaningfully different. They certainly are not going to find anything that aligns with real ergonomic research into language design, like that done by PPIG ( http://www.ppig.org/ ) and other groups.
it looks suspiciously like most other programming languages in terms of syntax.
Why would this be a criticism? Many languages have been aligning syntactically for decades.
The designers are not going to find anything different meaningfully different.
Given their rigorous evidenciary method is a byline "Submitted claims will be examined by experts in potentially a variety of fields (e.g., statistics, experimental design, psychology, computer science).", that's likely.
Comments
I'm going to call B.S. on this approach. When you look at the language it looks suspiciously like most other programming languages in terms of syntax.
What it's telling us is that the evidence is that most people kind of like their own programming language and want to modify nits.
The designers are not going to find anything different meaningfully different. They certainly are not going to find anything that aligns with real ergonomic research into language design, like that done by PPIG ( http://www.ppig.org/ ) and other groups.
Why would this be a criticism? Many languages have been aligning syntactically for decades.
Given their rigorous evidenciary method is a byline "Submitted claims will be examined by experts in potentially a variety of fields (e.g., statistics, experimental design, psychology, computer science).", that's likely.