filled out a premortem for Evocation :3

Force-Push: yes
Change-Id: If9584709d96ca98ed6e03d5987549df9eb357c33

1 files changed, 107 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/premortem.txt b/premortem.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d3809b1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/premortem.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+ Programming Language Checklist
+by Colin McMillen, Jason Reed, and Elly Fong-Jones, 2011-10-10.
+filled out for Evocation by Irenes, 2026-06-05.
+
+You appear to be advocating a new:
+[ ] functional  [X] imperative  [ ] object-oriented  [ ] procedural [X] stack-based
+[ ] "multi-paradigm"  [ ] lazy  [X] eager  [ ] statically-typed  [ ] dynamically-typed
+[ ] pure  [X] impure  [X] non-hygienic  [ ] visual  [ ] beginner-friendly
+[X] non-programmer-friendly  [X] completely incomprehensible
+programming language.  Your language will not work.  Here is why it will not work.
+
+You appear to believe that:
+[X] Syntax is what makes programming difficult
+[ ] Garbage collection is free                [ ] Computers have infinite memory
+[X] Nobody really needs:
+    [X] concurrency  [ ] a REPL  [X] debugger support  [X] IDE support  [X] I/O
+    [ ] to interact with code not written in your language
+[ ] The entire world speaks 7-bit ASCII
+[X] Scaling up to large software projects will be easy
+[X] 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
+[X] Specifying behaviors as "undefined" means that programmers won't rely on them
+[X] "Spooky action at a distance" makes programming more fun
+
+Unfortunately, your language (has/lacks):
+[X] comprehensible syntax  [X] 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-cc
+
+The 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!"
+[X] 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
+[X] 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  [X] 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
+[X] Interpreted languages will never be as fast as C
+[X] Compiled languages will never be "extensible"
+[X] 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 undecidable
+
+Your implementation has the following flaws:
+[ ] CPUs do not work that way
+[X] 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()
+[X] You require the compiler to be present at runtime
+[X] 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 functions
+
+Additionally, 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
+[X] Noone really believes that your language is faster than:
+    [X] assembly  [X] C  [ ] FORTRAN  [ ] Java  [ ] Ruby  [ ] Prolog
+[X] 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 justification
+
+Taking the wider ecosystem into account, I would like to note that:
+[ ] Your complex sample code would be one line in: _______________________
+[X] 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
+[X] 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
+[X] You have reinvented Brainfuck but non-ironically
+
+In 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.
+[X] Programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it.
+
+