[diminish]

I got mixed feelings about the language at first sight. I guess my mammalian brain recognizes languages based on the particular combination of the following naming decisions.

* func, function, fun, defun fu, funct

* CamelCase vs snake_case

* whitespace, semicolon or comma usage

* var, int/integer/uint64/Integer/

* choice of (), {}, [] or better (){a[]}

* import/include/require, class/class, override, self vs this, new vs Class()

PS: next time you design a new language just make a random unique combination of the above.

[fdej]

> PS: next time you design a new language just make a random unique combination of the above.

That's my impression whenever I see a new programming language too. Why would someone switch to your language if the syntax is just the same boring old syntax they've been using in another language?

[pjc50]

Why would someone switch language if the familiar concepts have been given different names for no good reason?

Use different syntax and naming for the things that are genuinely different about your language.

[jaxytee]

Because in this case, it's an alternative to a language (Objective C) with a not so boring esoteric syntax.

[annnnd]

Not boring at all - but I'm not sure this helps adoption any. :)

[fdej]

Since I'm being downvoted... please excuse my poor attempt at sarcasm.

What I'm saying is that I sometimes get the impression that language designers randomly change up syntax just to make their language look different, and thus superficially more appealing to users. Just like any other kind of product.

[Illotus]

It would be pretty weird to base language switching decision on syntax similarity.

[collyw]

Do you see the amount of people that complain about Pythons white space? Plenty of people avoid it for that reason alone.

[fit2rule]

>>mammalian brain

Woof woof! I got one too. My view of Swift is: not a good enough reason not to continue using Lua for the same problem.