[kardianos]

* Is there a need to differentiate func and fn? * Part of the function signature is "->" to indicates what it returns. Is this arrow needed? * For new types, you use syntax "struct User". I think Go got it right in this case where types are created with "type User struct", which can also create function types for fn variables like "type AssignUser func(name: String, id: Int) -> Int". * Does it help the lexer/parser to have the ":"? In function signature, do you need the ":" in func(name: String)? Could it be "func(name String)"? Same with type declaration but not assignment "mut elems: List[Int]", could that not be "mut elems List[int]"?

I'm picking nits. Overall I like it.

[politician]

I agree, it seems like there are a lot of decisions for the syntax to make writing the parser easier. It almost seems like the assumption is that there will be a robust autocomplete service available for inserting the extra notation.

The func/fn thing though with type inference of return values is especially annoying though because you won’t be able to hoist it to a package level function without changes to the signature. Subsequent readers have to perform their own mental return type analysis as well, and that’s just extra cognitive load. When reading code, I like when functions are extremely clear about their inputs and outputs.

I like that this exists though, and hope the project is successful.