Just because you're not capable of interpreting the formalism doesn't make it useless or not substantive. This readme wasn't written for you it was written for a type theorist.
Eh, I'm not sure about that. A type theorist would expect to see a clear description of what translations are performed as part of compiling this language, and a rigorous argument that this helps solve a real issue, e.g. wrt. memory management. It's hard to see either in the linked readme - it reads like a description of some promising, rough experiment, but not quite fully worked out in a way that would make it clearly understandable to uninvolved folks. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that, and it's definitely on par with many Show HN's. Just trying to call for some perspective.
The parent comment comes off as arrogant but so does this one. Oftentimes concepts like these are presented in language that's more impenetrable than necessary. I don't know if that's true here but it's a genuine problem.
