Thanks for the link. I'm thinking along the same lines and might derive some inspiration from Haxe on how to evolve python syntax to support features like GADT and FP that can be easily transpiled to other languages.
It looks like Haxe was designed from day 1 to be transpiler friendly, whereas I'm trying to leverage python's popularity and language ecosystem to achieve similar goals.
Sticking to a strict subset of python has the advantage that all the scripts are directly executable by the python interpreter. If we add some features (say implemented pattern matching similar to OCaml), we lose that.
Perhaps some macros/library features can bridge that gap. Or over time, python evolves to be more like OCaml.
It looks like Haxe was designed from day 1 to be transpiler friendly, whereas I'm trying to leverage python's popularity and language ecosystem to achieve similar goals.
Sticking to a strict subset of python has the advantage that all the scripts are directly executable by the python interpreter. If we add some features (say implemented pattern matching similar to OCaml), we lose that.
Perhaps some macros/library features can bridge that gap. Or over time, python evolves to be more like OCaml.