Implementation Status (work in progress)==========================================* Grammar: 99.99% done but new ideas come up every day...* Shell: implementation sorted out & working on the basic modules...* Language: The C/C++ Programming LanguageThis is not a dead project. ;-)Planned features:- I/O Redirection       (non-blocking pipelines all the way)- Background Jobs       (sure)- Deferred Commands     (could be more dangerous with this shell language)- Subshells             (could be useful without openning a new shell)- Null Expansion Error  (empty expansion stings; still has nullable expansion)- Variable Scopes       (default to local scope; no implicit block scopes)- Namespaces            (for module management)- Ternary Logic         (needed for the 21st century)- Globbing              (fail glob, null glob, fail/null regexp)- Cartesian Products    (just like bash's {a,b,c}{1,2,3})- Multi-line Strings    (no here documents; echo "<multiple lines>" | cat)- String Interpolations (any handy shell script needs this feature)- Array, Unordered Map, Ordered Map   (containers for text)- Perl Compatible Regular Expressions (power without perl)- Arbitrary-precision Arithmetic      (calculator included)- Command Auto-completion             (ease the typing)- Event Listeners/Triggers            (spooky at a distance)Why another shell program?==========================================First of all, it is not a replacement of sh/bash/zsh/...It is not intended to rule the POSIX world.It is created because many (legacy) shells just f*ck my work style.    * bash: arcane syntax, RTFM first    * zsh: bloated syntax, must RTFM because too magical    * rc: nice implementation, poor user interface and polluted env    * fish: attractive but going bad, ugly details waiting inside    * ????: why bother with another true (and ugly) programming language?Good-enough things are unbelievably great excuses to kill personal styles.Now I gotta try my own implementation.Goals:    * ease of typing (well, mainly for US keyboards)    * comprehensible syntax    * no undefined behaviors    * centralized UI configuration    * finely commented source code    * portable across unix-y systemsNon-Goals:    * posix-compliant    * pipe structured data    * interoperable with bash or other shells    * one scripting language to rule the world    * provide an escape-meta-alt-control-shift ide    * rich multi-language/locale support (defects: os/encoding/font/terminal)In summary, the shell should ease your typing and provide a simple scriptinglanguage that is easy to learn and master, thus more time for fun projects.Scripting Language==========================================The shell scripts will use a new scripting language.The actual look of it is left as an exercise for other shell developers.(May there be a *Unix Shell Haters' Handbook*?)Here is a checklist:Programming Language Checklistby Colin McMillen, Jason Reed, and Elly Jones.You appear to be advocating a new:[ ] functional  [*] imperative  [ ] object-oriented  [*] procedural [ ] stack-based[ ] "multi-paradigm"  [ ] lazy  [ ] eager  [ ] statically-typed  [*] dynamically-typed[ ] pure  [ ] impure  [ ] non-hygienic  [ ] visual  [*] beginner-friendly[ ] non-programmer-friendly  [ ] completely incomprehensibleprogramming language.  Your language will not work.  Here is why it will not work.You appear to believe that:[*] Syntax is what makes programming difficult[*] Garbage collection is free                [*] Computers have infinite memory[*] Nobody really needs:    [ ] concurrency  [ ] a REPL  [ ] debugger support  [*] IDE support  [ ] I/O    [ ] to interact with code not written in your language[ ] The entire world speaks 7-bit ASCII[ ] Scaling up to large software projects will be easy[*] Convincing programmers to adopt a new language will be easy[ ] Convincing programmers to adopt a language-specific IDE will be easy[ ] Programmers love writing lots of boilerplate[ ] Specifying behaviors as "undefined" means that programmers won't rely on them[*] "Spooky action at a distance" makes programming more funUnfortunately, your language (has/lacks):[*] comprehensible syntax  [?] semicolons  [_] significant whitespace  [_] macros[_] implicit type conversion  [_] explicit casting  [_] type inference[_] goto  [_] exceptions  [_] closures  [?] tail recursion  [_] coroutines[_] reflection  [_] subtyping  [_] multiple inheritance  [_] operator overloading[_] algebraic datatypes  [_] recursive types  [_] polymorphic types[_] covariant array typing  [_] monads  [_] dependent types[_] infix operators  [_] nested comments  [*] multi-line strings  [*] regexes[*] call-by-value  [_] call-by-name  [_] call-by-reference  [_] call-ccThe following philosophical objections apply:[*] Programmers should not need to understand category theory to write "Hello, World!"[*] Programmers should not develop RSI from writing "Hello, World!"[ ] The most significant program written in your language is its own compiler[*] The most significant program written in your language isn't even its own compiler[ ] No language spec[ ] "The implementation is the spec"   [ ] The implementation is closed-source  [ ] covered by patents  [ ] not owned by you[ ] Your type system is unsound  [ ] Your language cannot be unambiguously parsed   [ ] a proof of same is attached   [ ] invoking this proof crashes the compiler[ ] The name of your language makes it impossible to find on Google[*] Interpreted languages will never be as fast as C[ ] Compiled languages will never be "extensible"[*] Writing a compiler that understands English is AI-complete[ ] Your language relies on an optimization which has never been shown possible[ ] There are less than 100 programmers on Earth smart enough to use your language[ ] ____________________________ takes exponential time[ ] ____________________________ is known to be undecidableYour implementation has the following flaws:[*] CPUs do not work that way[*] RAM does not work that way[ ] VMs do not work that way[ ] Compilers do not work that way[ ] Compilers cannot work that way[ ] Shift-reduce conflicts in parsing seem to be resolved using rand()[ ] You require the compiler to be present at runtime[ ] You require the language runtime to be present at compile-time[ ] Your compiler errors are completely inscrutable[*] Dangerous behavior is only a warning[ ] The compiler crashes if you look at it funny[*] The VM crashes if you look at it funny[*] You don't seem to understand basic optimization techniques[*] You don't seem to understand basic systems programming[*] You don't seem to understand pointers[*] You don't seem to understand functionsAdditionally, your marketing has the following problems:[*] Unsupported claims of increased productivity[*] Unsupported claims of greater "ease of use"[ ] Obviously rigged benchmarks   [ ] Graphics, simulation, or crypto benchmarks where your code just calls       handwritten assembly through your FFI   [ ] String-processing benchmarks where you just call PCRE   [ ] Matrix-math benchmarks where you just call BLAS[*] Noone really believes that your language is faster than:    [*] assembly  [*] C  [*] FORTRAN  [*] Java  [*] Ruby  [*] Prolog[*] Rejection of orthodox programming-language theory without justification[ ] Rejection of orthodox systems programming without justification[ ] Rejection of orthodox algorithmic theory without justification[ ] Rejection of basic computer science without justificationTaking the wider ecosystem into account, I would like to note that:[ ] Your complex sample code would be one line in: _______________________[*] We already have an unsafe imperative language[ ] We already have a safe imperative OO language[ ] We already have a safe statically-typed eager functional language[*] You have reinvented Lisp but worse[ ] You have reinvented Javascript but worse[ ] You have reinvented Java but worse[ ] You have reinvented C++ but worse[ ] You have reinvented PHP but worse[ ] You have reinvented PHP better, but that's still no justification[ ] You have reinvented Brainfuck but non-ironicallyIn conclusion, this is what I think of you:[ ] You have some interesting ideas, but this won't fly.[*] This is a bad language, and you should feel bad for inventing it.[ ] Programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it.