smalltalk VS star

Working on GST my personnal fork of GNU Smalltalk. I've fixed a small issue regarding the object table in 64 bits you can expect to create much more objects without reaching an out of memory. Also I've improved the VM code specialy the way the objects were GCed and initialized so it brings much more flexibility to change the object layout (adding a new field at the VM level for instance) and added a static assert that will warm the developper ;-)

my own language Star! enjoyability is one of my main goals with the language, along with the "powerful, productive, and predictable" line

This is actually done by several bootstrapped languages, such as Crystal, Nim, Raku, and even my own language Star

In Star, commas and newlines are analogous everywhere, even inside array literals. This actually solves the issue of trailing commas by not needing commas at all

I really like Nemerle's OOP+FP hybrid model, and I've taken a lot of it to heart while designing my language Star, which is similar in spirit.

Most languages are afraid to for some reason, most likely because it "breaks tradition" or whatever. The only languages I'm aware of that allow this are Hack (for C-like enums) and my language Star (for both C-like and OCaml-like enums)

It's currently a work-in-progress, mainly due to subtyping issues with generics (which I'm honestly too lazy to fix rn, focusing on other stuff first). the code is located here, although be aware that it's a bit messy lol

Making lots of progress on Star's typechecker, which has been very difficult due to its expansive type system. Although still not completely finished or useable, it does at least work a bit. Currently need to implement type variable expansion/substitution, "lazy" type refinement (because I have no clue what else to call it), and some basic support for existentials

I think this is referred to as partial or lazy initialization. I have this feature in my own language Star (which us null-safe), but I don't have an actual null literal for this purpose

Sure I guess, here's one for Star: ``` You appear to be advocating a new: [X] functional [X] imperative [X] object-oriented [ ] procedural [ ] stack-based [X] "multi-paradigm" [ ] lazy [ ] eager [X] statically-typed [ ] dynamically-typed [ ] pure [X] impure [ ] non-hygienic [ ] visual [X] beginner-friendly [ ] non-programmer-friendly [ ] completely incomprehensible programming language. Your language will not work. Here is why it will not work.

Hello, I'm the developer of the Star programming language, and I have some questions about how to typecheck several new/uncommon features that it has, and looking for feedback on it in general.