I like that the general feedback here is against Applescript-like "native english" syntax. There are certainly also good arguments for and against native types, which are critized by the OP.
However, I think blaming meta languages is a bit too meta. Sometimes they are just diabolical tools such as a C preprocessor (some of us hate C/C++ for lacking a proper dependency/build system, isnt it). I personally also will never be happy with the knotty C++ template programming, despite being functional.
But sometimes meta programming is put into a language from the first place with good intentions in mind -- think about Pythons class and function annotations (which I have found very nice frameworks built with) or the way how LISP programs work. Actually I also find RUST and Julia great for having the meta programming concept right at the core!
Doing HPC and bare metal programming daily, I cannot stress more that a well-engineered programming language like RUST would make my life so much easier. Code generation as a preceding step is daily buisness in my subject and that's not programming for the 21st century.
However, I think blaming meta languages is a bit too meta. Sometimes they are just diabolical tools such as a C preprocessor (some of us hate C/C++ for lacking a proper dependency/build system, isnt it). I personally also will never be happy with the knotty C++ template programming, despite being functional.
But sometimes meta programming is put into a language from the first place with good intentions in mind -- think about Pythons class and function annotations (which I have found very nice frameworks built with) or the way how LISP programs work. Actually I also find RUST and Julia great for having the meta programming concept right at the core!
Doing HPC and bare metal programming daily, I cannot stress more that a well-engineered programming language like RUST would make my life so much easier. Code generation as a preceding step is daily buisness in my subject and that's not programming for the 21st century.