> I'm just taking it as an example

But this is grossly intellectually dishonest. You know very well how this will be read and responded to here ... and you keep saying that you're just talking about vibe-coding oh but you have serious criticisms of the specific effort. You write passive-aggressive stuff like

> For all I know they did make an informed decision regarding the tradeoffs (which I would consider to be a poor decision).

which contradicts your base assertion that their decisions were not informed. And

> My critiques of the language itself are not the main point, although I do still think that it's a very bad design ...

You claim

> The developer has built an entire language around a field seemingly without realising that said field exists.

but that is severely factually wrong, which along with a lot else suggests that you have very bad judgment. As the author writes,

> Bend proofs being verbose has nothing to do with me not knowing that inference, unification, or program search exists.

IOW, you have made a serious error in logic.

> To be fair to Bend, I completely vibe-coded this

Some advice: DBAD

You trashed the author and his work without bothering to learn anything about either one first (which is quite ironic).

I won't respond further.