[nene]

My hopes were high, but the more read about it, the more it started to look like Java:

    class Foo implements Comparable Observable Deniable ...

Why not have interfaces like in Go, where you just define a set of methods and all classes having the methods will automatically implement the interface.

    Collection<E>
    HashMap<K,V>
    HashSet<E>
    LinkedHashMap<K,V>
    List<E>
    Map<K,V>
    Set<E>

Why not just Array and Hash? And what's up with the whole generics thing - that's just plain old Java.

    int
    bool
    String
    Object

Why do some types start with lowercase and some with uppercase letter. Why not use a sensible naming convention?

    square(n) => n + n;
    square(5); // returns 25
    square2(n) { n + n; }
    square2(5); // returns null

Why not have an implicit return value everywhere?

I could go just on and on...

[jurre]

>int bool String Object Why do some types start with lowercase and some with uppercase letter. Why not use a sensible naming convention?

Primitives and objects, it kind of makes sense but I do see your point.

[nene]

But the thing is, they are not primitives:

> Although you might expect int and double to be primitive types, they're actually interfaces that extend the num interface. This means that int and double variables are also nums.

[nathanwdavis]

That's actually kind of like Haskell.

[vegai]

There's only one set of Rob Pikes and Ken Thompsons on this planet :-/

[masklinn]

Good news, maybe they won't try creating an other crappy language.