While AI has come a long way making out isn't commonly associated with CPUs so you prolly meant to say "let's make our".

I am sorry that my posts so far have been negative. I was poking holes, I suppose, but when something this complex is discussed it is easy to do so. I do admire the commitment and the idea is interesting.
Is the Windows version of this available to try under the GPL or a BSD type license? As mentioned I am certainly not a programmer but if I could give this a try I would love to
-- if only to try to trip it up (for fun, I would give feedback).
Edit: I am still doubtful, but I think the proof is in the pudding.

I think you are right on being negative. Walking without a metal finder across a mine field with positive attitude is not a good strategy.

1 members found this post helpful.

I prefer "Walking without metal finder across mine field with positive attitude is not good strategy."
I think negativity doesn't move this discussion on though and there are, perhaps, things which this language makes easier.

- a leading CPU company used to have a special "evil validator" title - assigned to those who find the biggest amount of bugs.

The OP has to answer several tough questions in order for his project to gain validity.

1 members found this post helpful.

That was the reason for my initial responses but I do want to make clear I mean them as challenges not plain negativity. I'd like to see this idea work, but if I can pick holes in it I'm not sure I trust it.
I like "Walking without metal finder across mine field with positive attitude is not good strategy." because it actually does make sense and sentences like it cause English grammar-police endless problems.

Yes, we agreed on that above -- dropping down into a specialized syntax whenever appropriate is fine and fully supported in our paradigm. But should things that are better said in a natural language be forced into a mathematical syntax? We say no.

As I mentioned before, the question here is not, Is the theory sound? It is. The thing works. The question is, Do any of you LINUX gurus want make it work on LINUX as it does on Windows?

As I mentioned in the original post, you can get the prototype program (for Windows) here: www.osmosian.com/cal-3040.zip . Start with the PDF in the "documentation" directory.

If it works, and you want to release it GPL, then can we use it now?
Are you planing to release this? Does the Windows API you've developed it on allow you to give that to people so they can see what you are looking to make?
Sorry, I'm reading now.

You know, instead I've downloaded http://www.osmosian.com/sample.zip and had a look into it.

In the example I see, for example:

.

And I am not a native speaker, and I do not understand it. If it's some kind of GUI context, then I'd say: 'there is a box widget with text in it of type "string"'.

So, for me it is not English. Though the words are in English and though the sentences are grammatically correct, they are nonsense to me.

On the surface it looks like syntax sugar to me, and I stated above, there are very powerful tools to create a variety of syntax sugars.

Oh, and I've read http://www.osmosian.com/manifesto.pdf - funny !

For example:

- how about type safety ? How about type inference ? Ho about the big O notation ? How about OS schedulers ? How about memory management ?

By the way, why do you want to translate into Linux ? I.e. how about Wine: http://www.winehq.org/ ?

The Windows download is provided for those who are considering converting it to run on LINUX.

Yes. Under LINUX it will be free and will hopefully be further developed by the LINUX community.

Yes. The converted product will look and feel and run the same on both operating systems.

My apologies, I posted a little prematurely.
I know I'll take a look and I'm sure others will. I do find the idea interesting but I'm extremely sceptical.

I find it interesting that a conversation on what possible ambiguities there are in the english (or any other for that fact) language has missed the original premise of this question.
So let me reiterate ... (Open Minded) Linux Programmer Wanted

I am not saying I know whether or not the idea raised is valid or possible, however, I see nothing open minded about trying to shoot it down.
I would add that I also did not see anywhere in the original question a request for comparison / review to existing solutions or ideas.

Lastly, to the OP, I am intrigued by your concept and would be interested to hear back when you have found a way to migrate to Linux

1 members found this post helpful.

Do you by any chance want to discuss in open-mined manner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion ?

Again, language design is a mature area with known problems, compromises, solutions.

The proposed language is not plain English.

None of my core questions pertinent to the issue has been answered.

It is quite possible the OP knows something revolutionary - Issac Newton or Albert Einstein or many other physicists and mathematicians brought revolutionary change to concepts.

If the OP has truly new revolutionary knowledge in computer science, I am all ears. Otherwise I see nothing good in what I've seen.

More pertinent questions. Is grammar context-free or not ? Is typing dynamic or static ? Are types automatically converted (e.g. int -> double) ?

In http://www.osmosian.com/manifesto.pdf :

.

To me it sounds like unbased nonsense. That is, there are known problems related to computer languages, there are hard reasons why human languages are not used, and there is no whatsoever indication in the document of new computer science which resolves all those problems.

I stick to my guess that under the hood it's no more than syntax sugar similar to Python syntax for OCaml I mentioned earlier.

By the way, pay attention to

- as if no other paradigms and languages (e.g. Prolog, LISP, Haskell, OCaml) exist. All those languages are very far from "C" conceptually and syntactically.

1 members found this post helpful.