Let's go. Put your money where you mouth is. Here's my bet: http://longbets.org/793/. Let's see your argument about why YAML is better. YAML is full of unnecessary complexity. We have immense research to back that up. You want to argue do some actual work.
> with little or no apparent work done toward buy-in from the enormous ecosystem of medical provider
Let's see, the past 4 weeks we had meetings with 3 people from NIH, 2 from OHDSI, talked with 5 different healthtech startups, had meetings with researchers from 3 different top tier institutions about collaborating for R1 Feb cycle, and had meetings with researchers from 4 different countries, was on a panel on medical tourism speaking about the importance of portable medical records....you were saying? You might not want to make assumptions because you make yourself look like an ass.
A prediction as to how many tree languages will be in the TIOBE top-ten eight years from now doesn't change the technical merit of your project. You have failed to justify why you feel the need to create a new grammar rather than using JSON, YAML, or TOML (my preference). Your project necessitates re-implementing parsers, viewers, and all the other tooling that goes into a new grammar; this is quite an ask for a domain-specific language with no traction.
You say you have had meetings, yet that's not actually buy-in. People will take your idea more seriously when you have actual adoption.
Oh and with respect to your second possibility on the long bets link, you really think C, Java, Python, SQL, PHP, JavaScript, and C++ will all fall out of the top 10? Break that out into a separate bet and you'll have people lining up to bet against it.
> A prediction as to how many tree languages will be in the TIOBE top-ten eight years from now doesn't change the technical merit of your project.
Agreed. What is does say is I have a lot of confidence in the technical merits. If someone spots a flaw in the technical merits, I'm all ears (i.e. prove why 2-D or 3-D languages are inferior to 1-D languages). If someone can show me a data structure that can be more efficiently (fewer parts) represented by a 1-D language—that would be great and a great argument against 2-D languages. But that hasn't happened yet, which makes me more confident in the technical merits.
> Your project necessitates re-implementing parsers, viewers, and all the other tooling that goes into a new grammar;
It's a lot of work and investment, I know. I'm funding a lot of it myself. But the potential rewards for the world are vast. Sometimes you have to do things that are hard. But the bet is that because this is simpler, the effects will compound. And the evidence so far is pointing to that. For example, the Grammar Tree Language now gives you parsers, highlighters, type checkers, visualizers, synthesizers, go to definition(new this week--thanks ZK!) etc, for a new Tree Language, in very few lines of code relative to existing 1-D languages. If you agree with the statement "software is eating the world", and I'm correct that 2/3 dimensional languages are a better type of software, then I think this could create far north of $1 Trillion worth of value annually for the world. More importantly to me it can help revolutionize medical records and then both medical research and healthcare delivery in the process.
> You say you have had meetings, yet that's not actually buy-in.
I agree! I wish I had more buy-in but it's still very early and we are working on it. The parent comment said "with little or no apparent work done toward buy-in" (emphasis added). We are indeed working toward buy-in.
> Oh and with respect to your second possibility on the long bets link, you really think C, Java, Python, SQL, PHP, JavaScript, and C++ will all fall out of the top 10?
Yes. If not from Tree Languages, from someone else's novel non 1-D languages. This isn't some shooting from the hip either, btw. We've built the world's largest database of programming languages and notations on the planet (over 10k languages, over 1k columns), so we can forecast and simulate the future.
Let's go. Put your money where you mouth is. Here's my bet: http://longbets.org/793/. Let's see your argument about why YAML is better. YAML is full of unnecessary complexity. We have immense research to back that up. You want to argue do some actual work.
> with little or no apparent work done toward buy-in from the enormous ecosystem of medical provider
Let's see, the past 4 weeks we had meetings with 3 people from NIH, 2 from OHDSI, talked with 5 different healthtech startups, had meetings with researchers from 3 different top tier institutions about collaborating for R1 Feb cycle, and had meetings with researchers from 4 different countries, was on a panel on medical tourism speaking about the importance of portable medical records....you were saying? You might not want to make assumptions because you make yourself look like an ass.