zlacker

>>Fascin+(OP)
What I really want to see from a "*-programming-language" post on HN is _why_. Why Lily?

>>onesev+fEb
The README on gitlab at least has a sentence or two on that: https://gitlab.com/FascinatedBox/lily

> An interpreted language with a focus on expressiveness and type safety

Personally I think typed scripting languages could be the future. They should support AOT compilation where necessary.

>>andyfe+bGb
Why do you think that's the future?

Isn't a waste to essentially reinterpret an entire program that may be run 5000 times a day?

AOT compilation, how is that different than make && run?

At some point, you have a compiled language, if it's quick to compile, you're doing the AOT yourself, the scripting is an illusion. Pun intended.

>>keyle+cMb
Isn't it a waste to run a test suite for a program that would run 1M times a day in production?

The key adjective here is successfully run. You want to detect any errors as early as possible. Ideally even at the early stages of writing the script, when a typechecker is already able to point at certain errors, and thus help avoid missteps in further design.