It translates to assembly&#x2F;machine code with a <i>lot</i> less code. I don&#x27;t need a compiler, I don&#x27;t need to write optimizations.[1]<p>I actually don&#x27;t consider Mu to be a language. (I&#x27;m the author.) It&#x27;s a low-level <i>starting point</i> to explore ways to make the standard OS primitives more testable. I don&#x27;t need it to look nice. Higher level languages can come later, once the foundations are in place.<p>I actually am growing increasingly suspicious of all our navel-gazing about syntax. We spend all our time in places like HN thinking about how to make small screenfuls of code look nice, but all that effort hasn&#x27;t really translated into helping me understand the large-scale structure of random open-source codebases more easily.<p>Perhaps one way to think about it is that syntax helps insiders keep a codebase in their head. I&#x27;m more concerned with ways to help more outsiders import a codebase in the first place. Because people leave and move on, and it&#x27;s very hard for software projects today to improve once their original authors move on. More on this: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;akkartik.name&#x2F;post&#x2F;readable-bad" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;akkartik.name&#x2F;post&#x2F;readable-bad</a><p>(I&#x27;m susceptible to carpal tunnel, but it hasn&#x27;t become a bigger issue. I take wrist breaks.)<p>[1] I can even imagine doing the translation in machine code, so that Mu then becomes self-hosting without needing any of the current stack. I might go down that road..