However, Kawa does have optional static typing.
That, plus careful language design, plus a smart compiler, means that Kawa code run very faster - much faster than Groovy or Clojure or JRuby or
Yes. (I suggest reading the LWN article linked in the submission - it's fairly short.)
The linked LWN article meantions some reasons: Among them that Kawa is much faster than closure (both execution speed and start-up speed). Plus some might like that Kawa is mostly-compatible with a pre-existing independently-specified language.
I took it over in 1996, and re-wrote it as a compiler. At this point, I doubt any of Alex's code still exists. I'm Norwegian-American, and Kawa means nothing in Norwegian. Still, I saw no reason to change the name.
You don't seem to know much about Texinfo. It is definitely very much about semantics - quite like DocBook. I agree DocBook takes the semantics thing slightly further than Texinfo - but it has big holes too: For example DocBook doesn't have a standard way to specify the structure of a command/function synopsis except for the C language.
The reason that DocBook is so "verbose" is that it actually indicates what things are.
One reason DocBook is so verbose is because it is XML, which by definition is verbose and human-unfriendly.
I've written plenty of documentation in both Texinfo and DocBook. They're both reasonable formats, but it is clear that DocBook is very tedious if you have to write it "by hand" rather than use a word-processor. Texinfo is much easier to both read and write, and it handles the "semantics" pretty well.
I'm skeptical, given how frighteningly many cases where someone has been proven innocent after years in prison based on a single eye-witness or jail-house informant, which we know are extremely unreliable, or scientifically bogus evidence, or coerced confessions and plea bargains.
Those who claim the dead never return to life haven't ever been around here at quitting time.