proposal-slice-notation VS V7

> Switch statements

JS has had switch statements for a long time. Do you mean switch "expressions" that can be used inline? It's not pretty but JS has long supported that too using either eval() "hacks" or IIFEs: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32451049/is-eval-the-onl...

Do you mean pattern matching? There are two Stage 1 TC39 proposals with different approaches to it:

More hands-on/direct: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pattern-matching

More indirect: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-do-expressions

> list comprehensions

There are several libraries with strong Iterator support today that while not syntactically gorgeous do great jobs at allowing you to write simple list operations. Off the top of my head are IxJS and iter-tools, but also classic mainstays like up to date versions of lodash and Ramda.

There's a Stage 2 proposal to bring more of them into "the standard library": https://github.com/tc39/proposal-iterator-helpers

There's also a Stage 2 proposal for an operator to make the syntax generally nicer no matter the library: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator

> array slicing

Array.prototype.slice() was added back in ES2015: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...

Array.prototype.at() was "just added" in ES2022 for unary "slice" (ability to use negative indexes): https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...

If you prefer syntax to function calls, there's a Stage 1 proposal still live for that: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-slice-notation

> better equality operators

That ship has probably sailed. Most projects at this point just have linter rules to standardize everything to the more reliable "triple equals" (===, and !==).

There are proposals for more structural equality functions in the standard library, though, for instance: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-array-equality

Both are stage 1 proposals that I hope get in there some day.

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-slice-notation

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pattern-matching

I used such a succinct AST structure to implement a JavaScript parser and interpreter for a severely memory constrained environment (embedded): V7 (https://github.com/cesanta/v7)

We later switched to a ast->bytecode compilation step but for a while the implicit AST was directly traversed during interpretation.

Nice! A few years ago I took a stab at this problem space with https://github.com/cesanta/v7 ; with fun tricks like in-place compacting GC, stdlib JS object graph "frozen" in rom etc

https://github.com/cesanta/v7

Languages are not all equal nor do they all function in the same way, and that's not my opinion.

Javascript syntax itself is one thing, and you can certainly feel free to Javascriptify some C++ libraries and make it all look a certain way for specific tasks, while managing things behind the scenes, up to a point... but there is no getting around the fact that SOMEONE and some languages are needed to implement low level systems functionality.

the power of Cython or the Python C FFI is that it allows you to script/glue modular native code.

You then state "C++14 may have been ratified 7 years ago but it's not the target code your build chain spits out"

no, a C++ COMPILER spits out assembler code that then gets assembled and linked into an executable.

The C++ or C code corresponds directly to a given set of assembler instructions which correspond directly to CPU instructions.

You claim that Python programming of microcontrollers is mainstream, but this is not true nor possible. Python SCRIPTING of code modules (that cannot be written in Python) is certainly one way to assemble a system from pre-built legos.

If you refer to knowing what I'm talking about as gatekeeping and egoism, might I suggest that you insist less forcefully in the correctness of incorrect things you state? we could be done with this spat in short order if YOU would refrain from speaking falsehoods. lies.untrue things.

I look forward to your lisp c compiler. make sure that it's 100% lisp from the bottom up, or I'll consider you're having ceded my point. Consider that the lisp you author in has a garbage collection system that lisp cannot have written originally, nor has any semantics for the underlying memory structures of, but hey, I guess if one is committed to pretending that all languages are equal for all tasks, who am I to question ones self-identification with a given language.