>Or Pony is not ready for the world. I mean, they don't even have arithmetic operator precedences

Many languages don't have arithmetic operator precedence (Smalltalk, Lisp, etc) and that's fine.

It's not some feature that's missing, it's a design choice.

In Lisp and Smalltalk it's obvious enough how composite expressions are evaluated, and they don't have the usual infix syntax to begin with. Pony does and the different precedences are just a bad surprise. As far as that's a design decision, I'd call it bad design.

>In Lisp and Smalltalk it's obvious enough how composite expressions are evaluated, and they don't have the usual infix syntax to begin with.

That's Lisp. In Smalltalk they do (have the usual infix syntax).

> have the usual infix syntax

Isn't it the case that all operators in Smalltalk have the same precedence and left-to-right associativity? That's not "the usual" infix syntax.

Usual referring to the mere "infix syntax" part (as opposed to some other kind of syntax that isn't infix).

Not to having "infix syntax plus the associativity / precedence you get in C". We've already established that it doesn't have the usual precedence.

The distinction was with e.g. Lisp which has a prefix syntax (polish notation), and other more exotic styles.

If you're going to complain about that, you might as well mention that the run-time system puts the terminal into a weird, pseudo-raw state that makes stdin/stdout act kind of funny, if you're not expecting it.

Does have a nice readline integration, though.