[weiwenhao]

I apologize for not being clear in my previous statements. As of now, Nature does not even have a version that is community-ready. In my opinion, talking about various ideas and innovations is meaningless and deceptive if the programming language itself cannot be used by the community.

Additionally, my design philosophy is also included in the GitHub README.

[ATMLOTTOBEER]

ITT people thinking there has to be a point beyond “bc I like it.” Do what you like! This is a cool project.

[Nevermark]

I don't think many people are against personally motivated projects.

But it's frustrating to hear about a project, but not be able to tell who should be interested. And who it won't ring any bells for.

My take is:

1. There is a lot of personal motivation here. I.e. a productive hobby now, hopes for larger impact later.

2. "Reliable", "Concise", "Open" and the code examples suggest (to me) a collaborative cleanup of the imperative style of coding the author usually employs.

3. So not a strong new take on languages.

4. Despite references to "gaming", "science", "AI", "OS's", "IoT" and "WEB", there isn't anything I can see that brings anything special or breaks ground in those areas. Other than the "cleanup" aspect.

If there are aspects I am missing regarding point 4, it would be nice to have them described.

My suggestion would be to (in addition to the cleanup, all for that!), focus on one and only one application area for now. Find something really special to bring to it. Make these new capabilities so convenient to use that within some modest but interesting/fun scope the language has no competition. Then define the "MVP" around that, instead of lists of general programming features and areas.