I would strongly suggest having a paragraph, right on the home page, explaining what an "evidence-oriented" language is and how it differs from conventional languages.<p>In other words, consider looking at your home page through the eye of someone who knows NOTHING about what you are doing.
Here's the explanation of the "evidence-oriented" wording for people who also had a hard time finding it: <a href="http://www.quorumlanguage.com/evidence.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.quorumlanguage.com/evidence.php</a>
I'm going to call B.S. on this approach. When you look at the language it looks suspiciously like most other programming languages in terms of syntax.<p>What it's telling us is that the evidence is that most people kind of like their own programming language and want to modify nits.<p>The designers are not going to find anything different meaningfully different. They certainly are not going to find anything that aligns with real ergonomic research into language design, like that done by PPIG ( <a href="http://www.ppig.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ppig.org/</a> ) and other groups.
Looks like an attempt to introduce some measure of scientific rigor to the design-by-committee paradigm, with a new programming language as its goal. Interesting, it could lead to some good ideas.<p>I'll wager that it won't be possible to assess many of the choices involved in a completely objective way, since the participants in each study will have prejudices and familiarities which will bias the results. Because of the science-oriented positioning, my guess is this language will be somewhat like Python (not that that is a bad thing).
This is basically a crowd-sourced programming language with fact-checking (by experimentation, on proposals before they are added).<p>A reductive explanation, yes, but I don't think it's inaccurate, based on what I could find on their site. Would love to be corrected if there's some large part I missed.<p>As far as actually constructive criticism, I'd really love it if this was the first thing I saw on quorumlang's homepage.
"Programming languages should be designed with human factors as a primary concern.<p>Traditional programming languages have been designed predominately with technical concepts and machines in mind. While such concerns are obviously critical, human beings ultimately use such tools in the broad development community. In evidence-oriented programming, human factors evidence takes a first-class seat in the language's design. All factors related to programming are considered, up for debate, and are subject to change if a community member shows rigorous evidence that another approach is better. This is true both for technical and human factors considerations. To our knowledge, Quorum is the first programming language to attempt this."<p><a href="http://quorumlanguage.com/evidence.php" rel="nofollow">http://quorumlanguage.com/evidence.php</a><p>So Quorum refers to developers coming to an consensus on what programming approach is better technical or not..
While in theory, it seems a good idea, in practice I'm not so sure about their results: for example using '+' for string concatenation while present in many languages is IMHO a bad idea: D use '~' instead: much cleaner to distinguish addition and concatenation otherwise x[] + y[] is ambiguous: element wise addition, concatenation? Who knows..
What about the coq proof assistant that must have been before this<p><a href="https://coq.inria.fr" rel="nofollow">https://coq.inria.fr</a>