HN Reader

What I really want to see from a "*-programming-language" post on HN is _why_. Why Lily?

> statically-typed

> Embed/extend in C

Is Lily intended to be (or could it be used as) a statically-typed alternative to Lua?

Personally I'm happy with dynamic typing for scripting - but I suspect many people would welcome a statically-typed option, and there don't seem to be many available.

One thing I very much appreciate in new-lang posts is seeing a code example above-the-fold, front and center. Kudos to the authors.

I’m a sucker for little embeddable languages but I’m even more of a sucker for rpn. Wonderful little example shows how simple of a math scheme it is.

Why not just use Ok/Error which is an accepted idiom and shorter than Success/Failure?

I see this so often in new languages, making poor choices seemingly only to distinguish themselves from existing languages

Has anyone yet designed a language with the explicit goal of being cheapest/easiest to use by an AI coding agent?

I would like to understand the motivations for building another programming language when in fact, firstly, a lot of code is being written by Claude and the like, and secondly, the existing languages and low level options like C, Assembly have become more accessible now thanks to AI coding tools.

> for v in values: {

Both colon and {... why? And it seems very mixed in the example.

Yet another programming language. Why not invest the time into fixing other languages? Is it really so important to have _that_ keyword and not having _that_ `;`? There are enough languages for probably all tasks.

It uses refcounting, and GC for cycles. Sounds good. Why don't more Lua-likes?