I decided to design another programming language called Weenier, and branded both Nava and Weenier into a family of languages.

(print: "Hello, world!")

It was intended to be a simple programming language for rookie programmers wanting an introduction language(s) on learning non-visual programming.

# define function
(define: contains, {items, item})
  (pairs: i, items)
    (if: i == item)
      (return: yes)
  (return: no)

# test function
(print: $(contains: {"a", "b", "c", "e", "d", "f"}, "c"))

I think this is less simple than Scheme. That has to be the minimal standard for a language that means to be especially simple! Partly it just has a lot of syntax, but also, it took me quite a while to figure out that "pairs" means "for each item."

Also, umm, I don't know if this was your intention, but when I saw "weenie" my first thought was not about programming languages.

In Weenier, it takes one line to write a HelloWorld program to supposed to three on Scheme.

(print: "Hello, world!")
  (display "Hello, World!")

I could agree with you on that it takes syntax more than Scheme, which I can use in accountant to ignore the colons between the function and the arguments. I can understand why you could be confused what pairs meant, so maybe I can change it to each or foreach.

I can see. Weenier is quite a silly name to be honest, as you can thought it's about hot dogs or something. I honestly could have picked a better name.

yeah, or something. :~P

what's the $ for?

During that time, it is used to trade back to a declared function. I have plans for dropping this.