Looking through the examples, macros and pattern-matching, for me that would be impressive like 10 years ago. If you want to see really innovative, readable and powerful language check out Red. While the language development seems to be ceased, the ideas (coming from old proprietary Rebol language) of working with code and data go much deeper than just macros: it has built-in DSL (called parse) for making DSLs on the…
Looks like Red’s `parse` is just that… a parser. The pattern matching + “shrubbery” notation (see paper; tldr: syntax trees but flatter and more flexible via delayed parsing) are waaaay more general as they allow you to define totally new language grammars inside Rhombus itself. Building Red’s `parse` would be trivial in Rhombus. Moreover, compile-time macros fill a different role than run-time extensibility: macros…
One example I don't think you can reproduce with macros is something like this (I don't have Red at hand)
args: [x y] # these are literal items, like quote in lisps
code: [x * y]
my_func: func args code
print my_func 5 10 # prints 50