25 comments

[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 38.4 ms ] thread
Will never not complain about languages not giving code examples. It’s like writing a charting/UI/style library and showing no examples. Just what?
I worked with Jason (creator of Om) at my last job. He's awesome!
Would recommend placing example language syntax above the fold. Was tough to have to scroll halfway down the entire site to see any syntax. Nobody cares about the EBNF syntax until they have a feel for the language.
Alt opinion: syntax is the least important part of a programming language. I can't wait for the day someone invents one where it's defined entirely as an AST (with the S standing for Semantic). Just bring your own weird syntax.

I guess Unison is the closest to this platonic ideal right now? https://github.com/unisonweb/unison/issues/499

Last commit is from 2 years
Ah, thought it was new.
Almost every site for a new language that gets posted here does this. Every time someone points out how they don't care about anything until they've seen what code actually looks like. I'm surprised this still happens.
Aren't LLMs supposed to write machine code directly, no more programming languages at all, any day now? Joking aside, programming languages are a good mental exercise. Forth was my first language after assembly. Didn't like the stack juggling and ended up using its macro assembler more and more, it became something else, conventions over code I suppose, like what to keep in registers. Forth (and Unix) got the composability requirement right, the testing of individual units.
So instead of using programming languages designed specifically to effectively express algorithms and data structures, we are going to use natural language like English that is clearly not expressive enough for this? It’s like rewriting a paper about sheaf cohomology in plain English without any mathematical notation and expecting it to be accessible to everyone.
Conrad Barski, Feb 25, 2026:

> Working atari 2600 flappy bird, by just asking chatgpt to directly output the raw bytes for a cartridge image

TBH this is a bit unexpected: it should know how to encode instructions, of course, but calculating all jumps on the fly is rather hard (I think).

Missing a 'g'!

Omg would have a ring to it.

I like how it unifies the operation stream with the stack (by pushing outputs back into the operation stream to process next).

An even simpler model than Forth, which evaluates an operation stream, with words that operate on a stack. And as noted, this makes recursion trivial.

What is the meaning and reason behind the choice of this specific name for the language?
Om = Forth + Tcl ?

We've already seen Forth + Lisp

What's next? Lisp + Tcl ? Or maybe: Lisp + Forth + Tcl ? ;)

I get the feeling there is something interesting here, but the website seems myopically focused on syntax. It doesn't really tell me what this language is good at or how you'd expect people to use it.
This language is going to be a SuperHitPopular in India !!!
Has the CSS failed to load for me, or are the syntax diagrams meant to be that wide and blurry?