[kbolino]

On the one hand, I can respect the authors for sticking to what they want to accomplish and not accommodating every demand.

On the other hand, that is hardly the only thing from the FAQ that raises one's eyebrows:

> we have no package manager and encourage less code reuse as a shared value

> qbe generates slower code compared to LLVM, with the performance ranging from 25% to 75% the runtime performance of comparable LLVM-generated code

> Can I use multithreading in Hare? Probably not.

> So I need to implement hash tables myself? Indeed. Hash tables are a common data structure that many Hare programs will need to implement from scratch.

As it stands, this is definitely not a language designed for mass adoption. Which is fine, and at least they're upfront about it.

[jay-barronville]

Some of those design decisions I’m okay with, but deliberately not providing a basic hash table for general usage is pretty bizarre. I can’t think of even one serious software project I’ve worked on that didn’t need a dictionary/map-like data structure somewhere in the code.