Lambda the Ultimate

But you've basically made a post with no information in it. I haven't seen a lot of "Nice to meet you all" posts here; I get the general impression that LtU's readers value a high signal to noise ratio, so it'd be better if you provided details about your language, if you're looking for opinions on specific things, etc. You won't get any feedback or discussion about your new language until we know what it is ;p

... so you want to reinvent Scala?

No, seriously, what do you intend to discuss about? You didn't ask any questions.

Before developing your own language, it'll help if you study the space and make sure there isn't anything out there that can meet all your needs ... really. If you want to do it because you can, its ok too :)

Usually, its not a language's specific characteristic that leads to elegant solutions for domains, but its a set of abstractions/mechanisms that lead to the elegance. For example - closures, macros, call/cc, even objects. It'll help to work out the kind of elegance you're looking for in your domain before inventing the language & environment lest you be disappointed later on that you can't achieve your goal using your invention.

Hello, again. Well, my question was something like "Is it OK to discuss it here", but, if the answer is affirmative...

Here are some AWL demos (what they demonstrate is mostly graphics and Windows interraction):

http://sardar.vingrad.ru/AWL/awl_and_demos.zip

Currently, there is not much documentation, but I plan to make brief description of language in english soon. AWL sources are more or less self-documented, I hope.

I think few people will straight-away take the hassle to download, unzip and take a look at your files, without you giving at least some more detailed explaination about what you're doing. I did, but couldn't unzip the file (using MacOSX).

So maybe you take the time and write a document and make it available for public. Learning a language requires effort and good introductions to get started - reading the language implementation doesn't help very often. Examples are better, but as I said above, I couldn't access them - but making them more easily available will help even more.

Note also, that most people reading LtU do know quite many programming languages and probably have some favourite language, so you probabluy have to spend some more effort to advertise your language.

That ZIP file seems to be corrupt, sorry.
Try this link instead: http://awl-project.narod.ru/awl-wg.zip

English-language documentation is still a problem. (There's a plenty of documentation available, but almost entirely in Russian, and lots of efforts is needed to translate it to other languages.) Here are a brief references entirely in English:

http://awl-project.narod.ru/_synchart.htm (Syntax chart)
http://awl-project.narod.ru/_functors.htm (List of AWL functors)

Hope this helps a bit...

As illustrated by Van Roy and Haridi (and others no doubt), sometimes an interesting way to define a language is via a "kernel" language with a layer of syntactic sugaring over it. The sugaring provides powerful expressions that apply to many purposes, while the kernel language in its simplicity makes the underlying semantics of the language easy to understand. Do you define your language that way? If so, is the kernel language imperative? I am interested in approaches where the kernel language is declarative or even functional. The sugaring above can still provide imperative-looking operations, such as message sending between virtual computers.

As illustrated by Van Roy and Haridi (and others no doubt), sometimes an interesting way to define a language is via a "kernel" language with a layer of syntactic sugaring over it. The sugaring provides powerful expressions that apply to many purposes, while the kernel language in its simplicity makes the underlying semantics of the language easy to understand. Do you define your language that way?

Precisely.
AWL syntactic constructs are mostly "syntactic sugar": for example, simple expressions like a*b + c*d are just shortcuts for add(mul(a, b), mul(c, d)) and so on. Nearly 90% of language are builtin functors and their implementations.

If so, is the kernel language imperative? I am interested in approaches where the kernel language is declarative or even functional.

Partially imperative, partially functional, partially objective. AWL has a lot of functors to support more-less traditional control flow: conditionals: if (...)/unless (...), iterators: while(...)/until(...), for_inc()/for_dec and so on. But there are also functors, which operate on entire data structures (like, for example, l_map()) -- these ones are more "functional" in style.

The sugaring above can still provide imperative-looking operations, such as message sending between virtual computers.

Sounds interesting.