Whelp, I got disqualified. Best of luck to everyone else still standing.
@TheDrone7 As I stated in the linked change log and commit history, my work during the Jam period added metaprogramming components that allowed for some of the features highlighted in my post here. For example:
wavg()to omit explicit types
load()(it used to be a hardcoded function up until a couple weeks ago)
It's your call to disqualify, but I find very strange when you claim I didn't make changes to the language over the last three weeks.
@TheDrone7 I went by what was in the blog's FAQ:
Can I remix or improve on an existing language?
Yes, as long as you're adding original ideas and putting an effort to meaningfully change or improve the language.
@TheDrone7 The rules don't say that commits have to be done by two people. It literally does not say that.
I hate to belabor this point since you've made-up your mind, but you clearly are not "enforcing the rules" when you are making this up.
Looks like you got reinstated! And our comments were deleted.
@TheDrone7 I'm not asking you to change the rules. I'm asking you to judge me by the merits of what I did during the Jam. Generics are such a difficult feature in statically typed languages that Go and Zig don't have them.
The whole promise of this contest was that I would be judged by language experts.
If you're interested in Haskell-meets-Lisp, Kadena's Pact might be of interest. I haven't played around with it (it's for blockchain applications), but it's an example of combining type systems with macros.