This is a completely legitimate answer to my questions.

I'm just curious - I'm not passing judgement at all. Hell, I've a C++ compiler I've been working on for a while (it doesn't get much attention). Why? It forces you to confront the spec (all +1200 pages of it) and to understand the nuances of the language. I don't ever expect my compiler to be released publicly or used in production, but it's for my own personal growth and to increase my understanding of the language, which makes me a better C++ developer. I'm more of a data systems programmer (I work in finance), so working on a compiler exposed me to other areas I wasn't familiar with (parsers, grammars, ASTs, etc).

But, more substantive answers to the questions I've asked of a language(s) designer(s) can provide insight into what the language is well (or poorly) suited for or for it's potential longevity. If it was created for fun by the author, it's probably significantly less likely to have large adoption.

Unfortunately, I now commute 2 hours a day in the car, so my spare reading time is greatly diminished, so I don't have 40 minutes twice a day to read something novel like this in detail on the train like I used to have.

I'm holding out for Google Narration.

"Google, read me Hacker News!"

"Are you sure? Looks like nothing interesting this morning. Oh wait, Aphry just posted something. Would you like to hear it?"

"Sure!.. Wait, Google, why don't you drive, and I'll read it!"

"Sounds great. Should I start the espresso machine as well?"

Very few languages reach any significant adoption, regardless of why/how they were designed.

And a lot of the popular languages are pretty terrible.

Im also sceptical of that designing the language with practicallity in mind would make it signifficantly more useful.

You'd have to judge each of them by their own merit.

Writing a language for fun is totally fine, but it is useful to know that fact when the language is being shared. Am I looking at this language to see if it will be useful to solve a problem I have that existing languages don't solve, or is it just an exercise, or is it an improvement?

All of those points are moot without adoption and maturity, something a new language by definition won't have.

No, but there is still a big difference between a new language with a still-small community, but with ambition and some early attempts to apply it at "real" problems, vs a brainfuck-like, just for kicks language.

Everything is done for a reason. Sometimes that reason is just "to have fun / learn something new / expand ones horizons" and that's okay. But sometimes the reason is "to get the same amount of work done faster" and that's also okay. A lot of the mainstream languages were made for the second reason, but probably most hobbyist languages were made for the first.