[throwaway894345]

The syntax seems generally fine (Python's type annotation syntax is shoe-horned to minimize changes to the parser--if you're allowing yourself to rewrite the parser, why not improve the type annotations? Indeed, why not stick to a more Rust-like syntax in general?). I would want the ability to restrict the standard library and builtins (no I/O) a la Lua. Also, if the type system involves a borrow checker, I'll pass (borrow checking is cool but it doesn't make sense in what is ultimately intended to be a configuration language).

[adsharma]

I'm open to having another syntax, another parser that produces the same AST. Let the market decide. No borrow checker concepts in the source, but transpiled rust code of course uses the borrow checker.

The python standard library is where I think the strength of this approach lies. Was reading some history on why reddit was rewritten in python (after initially implemented in LISP).

Transpiling python stdlib is a significant task in itself and could use more love.

[throwaway894345]

Having a stdlib is fine, but it’s incompatible with an embedded scripting language where we want to provide and control the APIs that are available to the user. It sounds like you’re building a general purpose application programming language which is fine, but the tradeoffs differ.