Oh these are great, thanks so much for the links and detailed response. I can't wait to play with these. I had one questions about this comment in regards to compresses ASTs:
>" If you know how fast Go is, then you'll know what we lost when it got ignored"
I am intrigued by that statement but I don't understand it. Can you elaborate? Cheers.
Go is a Wirth-like language. Wirth's measure for complexiy of a language was how long it took to compile. He'd take features out if compiles got too slow. So, the Wirth compilers were fast along lines of tens to hundred thousand lines of code compiled per second. They didn't optimize a ton either but code was fast enough.
So, with Juice, you're looking at getting an Oberon program or subset of Go delivered to your computer as compressed source, type-checked + compiled in a second, and then running safely at native performance. Much better than Javascript or Java applets. Would've had way fewer vulnerabilities, too, since Oberon effectively has no runtime except the GC. It's also memory-safe.
EDIT: Looking at Pascal stuff, I found an example of Wirth-style, compile speed in a Delphi discussion. Delphi was the VC++ alternative from Pascal family. One commenter on HN talking a legacy codebase praised compile speed: "a full build of 2 million lines takes less than a minute on a single core." That's for an exe with no VM's, dependencies, etc that runs on vanilla x86 & win32. Or alternative platforms with FOSS Lazaurus.
I see, I thought you were originally suggesting that Go compilations were slow but I understand you are saying that with Go we got fast compile times but a lot the other benefits of Oberon/Wirth were left on the table.
I remember reading that Go took some inspiration from Oberon.
This is a good info-graphic on where Oberon and some of the Wirth languages fit in the Algol tree if anyone else is interested:
Yeah, vs Go, Oberon's could be used for OS's, modified for web in Juice, were simpler, and so on. I like the first chart in the Quora article as it shows modern, imperative programmer things were more complex than just ASM, C language, VB6, "application" languages, and "scripting" languages. ;) The second is somewhat irking because it doesn't have Ada. Although I might have overlooked it given all the text and it's easier to read than the first. Maybe just add Ada in there. While we're at it, I think these maybe should include SPARK as it's own entry given it was first language that let you automatically prove absence of errors without formal verification. Used to great effect in IRONSIDES DNS, SPARKSkein, and Muen.
>" If you know how fast Go is, then you'll know what we lost when it got ignored"
I am intrigued by that statement but I don't understand it. Can you elaborate? Cheers.