I hated sounding negative on the article. It represents a lot of admirable effort. My point is that the effort is not directed in a particularly constructive direction in regard to creating a new programming language.

There's a clear goal when writing a language that is both a floor wax and a desert topping. On the other hand, all writing a language with the goal of being neither floor wax nor desert topping just gets us a floor topping and a dessert wax. There's no problem solved. Griping isn't brainstorming.

Brainstorming is structured. Productive brainstorming is constrained by reality. By which I mean that brainstorming about something like type inference acknowledges that type inference is subject to the Halting problem and that dynamic typing as in Python does not entail type inference.

Starting with Assembly, all higher level programming languages are DSL's over machine code. Things I hate is not a domain that leads to insight or a coherent minimum language. Python's core was addressing pedagogical problems such as beginners learning to format code well. Google's Closure compiler addresses the problem of JavaScript performance. Rust is intended to address client server programming. For each there is something that can be measured objectively and improved.

Don't misunderstand me, there's nothing wrong with writing a programming language as a learning exercise or to scratch one's own itch or solve the world's problems. But it is an engineering design exercise not a poem. The facts of computation make it so.