[jesserayadkins2]

They're the same thing. The first (Cat(arg)) is the same thing as the second (Cat.new(arg)). The reason for the distinction is...umm...I'm still not sure if I want to eventually include classes as values the way that other things are values.

If you're grabbing the constructor as a function, for example, then it's a bit more sensible to use Cat instead of Cat.new. I don't know...it seemed at the time neat to allow a shorthand way of constructing something, but it's kinda wonky.

[taftster]

Hey, I just wanted to shout out and say that your reply here is refreshing. I appreciate that you admit that the feature is "kinda wonky" and that you're still looking at and intellectually rationalizing about such things. There's no harm in trying out the various constructor approaches, and then see how it feels in the real world.

This is refreshing from other newish (cough golang) languages which pick the "wonky" path, but go on to defend it tirelessly. Keep up the good work.

[adrianratnapala]

My instinct is to say that you should allow classes as oridnary values. Many interpreted languages do this with success. For example in Python, classes are objects (which happen to be callable) and some nice simplifications derive from it.

On the other hand, Lily is a type-safe language with generics. The kinds of "metaprogramming" that you would try to do with Python classes-as-objects might be done in different ways in Lily.

More theoretically, the whole point of types (as sets) was to was to be a qualitively distinct layer of things that could not be mixed up in logically paradoxical combinations with other objects. That abstruse point of logic might or might not have practical implications for a real-world programming language.

[jrapdx3]

New languages are intriguing, and seems to me Lily definitely has potential, though of course I need to learn more about it.

My immediate reaction to the name "Lily" is positive, evokes a sense of calmness, and suggests an elegant, well-structured set of tools.

Regarding constructor syntax, probably "Cat.new()" is more common or conventional. I kind of like "Cat()" as it's less verbose, noisy. However I see what you mean about allowing classes as values, if not entirely clear to me how that feature would absolutely demand one syntax over the other.

I agree with other comments, Lily is an outstanding one-person effort! That its creator is self-taught only adds to its charm.