[JoelMcCracken]

Yes, “wrong” was a bit of a strong word, but do note that I intentionally framed it as an opinion and not as, like, objectively wrong.

UI is still important, but I do not think it really defines a language.

Let’s say I created a new Haskell compiler, and it had the best error messages in the world, a hiccup-free LSP experience, maybe an alternative syntax format that’s more familiar to mainstream devs. But it still has all the same semantics. Is that still Haskell? Why or why not?

Now let’s say I took whatever has the best tooling currently, idk what it would be, maybe TypeScript, but gave it say non-strict semantics. Is that still typescript?

[seanmcdirmid]

If you consider the programming experience/UI to be the language along with the tools that support that language, then you don't need to concern yourself if using Haskell in vim is the same thing as using Haskell in an IDE that supports it really well, they aren't the same thing.

If you take it to an extreme, like with Smalltalk, you wind up with languages whose environment is considered essential, they are basically part of the language at that point.