Interesting project, but I believe the base assumption is already slightly wrong. Why do we assume that LLMs know what kind of language would benefit them? This information is not knowable without doing proper research, and even if there is some research like that, it would have to be a part of the training data. Otherwise it's just hallucination.

I agree, it´s mostly a silly whim taken too far. Too much time in my hands.

In particular the whole stack based thing looks questionable.

In fact the very first answer by Gemini proposed an APL-like encoding of the primitives for token saving, but when I started the implementation Claude Code pushed back on that, saying it would need to keep some sane semantics around the keywords to be able to understand the programs.

The very strict verification story seems more plausible, tracks with the rest of the comments here.

What has surprised me is that the language works at all, adding todo items to a web app written in a week old language felt a bit eery.