This looks pretty cool, and the detailed descriptions are great, though I agree with others that an additional, shorter and more illustrated overview would also

This looks pretty cool, and the detailed descriptions are great, though I agree with others that an additional, shorter and more illustrated overview would also be nice. Anyway, I came to complain about the syntax, knowing full well that tastes differ etc. But look: (round, parens, construct, sequences) and hence for grouping they use braces: a = b + {c * d} and they also have sets built into the language! But as braces are already taken, those are constructed with square brackets: [1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3] = [1, 2, 3] And there are range types as well, using angle brackets: <1..31> The departure from traditional math syntax is just a bit too weird in all this. I'm not saying any other language's syntax is perfect, but really, not using braces for sets is strange. Why do this? Pretty much any other permutation of the different kinds of parenthesis for the different constructs would seem more understandable to me. If I had designed this language, I would have used [] for sequences, {} for sets, and () for grouping. Or maybe, to be closer to mathematical notation but farther from other programming languages, it would make even more sense to use <> for sequences and [] for range types.