I find the goals of explicitness and maintainability to be really pitched to my current taste. From a quick view it looks like the syntax is approaching a local maximum for conforming to expectations and not sacrificing the explicitness sought.

As the developer, where do you land on meta-programming for the language? I applaud the straight up nature of ‘the battery will never be included’ and the reminder to consider the possibility of a feature being a library instead of a syntax or language feature. I certainly don’t think meta-programming is essential, but the ability can contribute to the ease of use for library code.

And I’ll ask now since it always comes up, where does Mach stand on ‘advanced’ type theory uses for ‘low-level’ programming? I noticed the admonition that safety is the developers job which is sure to bring some ‘heat’ from the memory-safety-is-table-stakes crowd, in light of that, where does Mach stand regarding ways to ensure ‘safety’?

I haven't ever made a low level language.

That said, it seems pretty damned impressive to me that mach is only four times slower than C, particularly since you've only worked on it for two years.

I like the syntax. The example code and a couple files in src I looked at were all easy to read.

This looks really nice, great work so far! I see a macOS backend is still in development. I'd like to try the language out on macOS, so if I find the time I'll try to pitch in!

fully self hosted without any external dependencies is incredibly impressive, amazing work