Formality VS monadless

Also, my current work is using Kind as a foundation, the purpose of this language is exactly what you have asked for, give a check on https://github.com/uwu-tech/Kind.

Kind has a "how I learned to stop worrying and love the `Type:Type`" vibe. That doesn't make it invalid as a proof language. It just inverts the priority: instead of consistency being the default and expressivity being opt-in (as in Agda, with the `type-in-type` pragma), it is expressive by default, and consistency is an opt-in. I strongly believe that is the right way. We plan to add opt-in termination (thus consistency) checkers, it is just not an immediate priority, but the language is completely ready for that. About `Type in Type` specifically, keep in mind that there are consistent, interesting type theories that feature `Type in Type`. So it isn't problematic in itself, and removing it seems wrong.

About erasure, you can flag an argument as computationally irrelevant by writing `` instead of `(x: A)`. So, for example, in the [Vector/concat.kind](https://github.com/uwu-tech/Kind/blob/master/base/Vector/con...) file, `A`, `n` and `m` are erased. As such, the length of the vector doesn't affect the runtime. As a good practice, you may also write `f` instead of `f(x)` syntax for erased arguments, but that is optional.

> TL;DR -- I think the language looks nice, and the compile to JS (from what I read of the Formcore source) looks to be well done. Also, the docs that are present are well presented in a non-academic way that I find pretty readable.

Thanks for the kind words. We put a lot of effort on the compilers and, while there is still a lot to improve, I'm confident they're ahead of all the other languages, by far.

Kind is a functional, general-purpose programming language featuring theorems and proofs. It has the smallest core, a pretty solid JavaScript and Scheme compiler (seriously, check how clean is the generated kind.js), and a syntax that is a middle ground between Haskell and TypeScript, in an attempt to make it more accessible.

I'm writing CONTRIBUTE.md right now.

Well `RecordWildcards` has been around for 14 years... but even without it instead of `{..}` you'd just have `_`s. The main thing that is different is that your Kind example had nested case statements while your Haskell example tried to match everything on one shot, which makes for a non-equivalent comparison.

> Not sure how that could work, though. Idris had an interesting syntax, but IIRC it wasn't general.

I assume you're talking about idiom brackets for applicatives? The general syntax is given in something like https://github.com/monadless/monadless. The idea is to basically take async-await syntax and generalize it to any monad.

So e.g. your `Maybe` example (using `!` for the equivalent of `await` for concision) would look like

  Maybe {

> If anything, async-await feels like an extremely non-functional thing to begin with

It, like many other things, forms a monad. In fact async-await is a specialization of various monad syntactic sugars that try to eliminate long callback chains.

Hence things like Haskell's do-notation are direct precursors to async-await (some libraries such as Scala's monadless https://github.com/monadless/monadless make it even more explicit, there lift and unlift are exactly generalized versions of async and await).