> Avoiding the heap ... will prevent you from working with substantial amounts of data

This isn't really true of Goose, it's avoiding 'the heap' in the C sense, not in the OS allocated pages of memory sense. One is a programming abstraction provided by the other, but GP is only talking about the programming abstraction. I have never encountered a program that couldn't have memory be explicitly tied to lexical scope, but it can result in less efficient use of it in some cases.

Goose is almost, but not exactly the "allocate all your stuff at the beginning" the programming language. It's honestly the most exciting language I've seen in quite some time.

> I have never encountered a program that couldn't have memory be explicitly tied to lexical scope, but it can result in less efficient use of it in some cases.

> Goose is honestly the most exciting language I've seen in quite some time.

I took a look at its home page [1] and I immediately see red flags:

- Over sixteen benchmarks Goose runs at 3.3x the speed of idiomatic C++, 1.16x hand-optimized C++ and 1.12x the best safe Rust, and uses 1.9x, 1.3x and 1.2x less memory (results). These gains come from Goose's data layouts and memory model.

- push returns a reference to the new element, so a program can link elements while building the array. A vector<T> or Vec<T> may reallocate and cannot provide this guarantee. Stable references account for several benchmark gains.

You're suggesting a performance loss (as expected), but they're claiming a (rather incredible) performance gain?

And they're claiming their vector stable and doesn't reallocate, yet without a performance loss, which makes no sense... it's not a vector anymore. And if you want a non-vector then you can do that in C++ too.

The whole LLM vibe doesn't help inspire confidence either, but even ignoring that, the technical claims themselves are incredible and bizarre, and I'm only a few paragraphs in.

[1] https://aardappel.github.io/goose/