When comparing LiveCode vs Ceylon, the Slant community recommends LiveCode for most people. In the question“What is the best programming language to learn first?” LiveCode is ranked 39th while Ceylon is ranked 46th.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pro Fast to get results
Inside LiveCode's IDE you can build for OSX, Linux and Windows, and (making use of Xcode and the Android SDK) for iOS and Android too
Pro Extremely simple to get started
Single-click install of entire development environment, and all-in-one IDE makes it easy to go from visually layout out a user interface to writing code to power it to creating your own single-file applications.
Pro GUI-driven development
In LiveCode, you start by dropping GUI elements into place, then add the code that makes them function. This lets beginners see visual results right away, which is often more exciting (especially for young students). It also lets you focus on the user interaction before you get into the nitty-gritty of code implementation.
Pro Approachable yet capable language
Pro Highest ROI compared to other popular cross-platform development tools
Fluid production - from prototyping to delivery in one toolkit. With a high-level language that includes GUI controls as native elements, code more directly expresses the end-user experience. And the platform coverage is awesome, nearly unmatched.
Pro Strong static typing, null safe and flexible, almost dynamic type system
The compiler prevents you from using a potentially null variable, unless you check it is not null. Ie. it forces you to check a potentially null value before using it.
The type system is strict, but flexible, allowing union and intersection of types, covariant and contravariant types, reified types, etc.
Type inference and union types allows a dynamic programming style, close of JS spirit.
It brings type safety to JS, allowing to define interfaces to existing JS APIs, yet using the
dynamic keyword for flexible calls in the JS ecosystem.
Pro Excellent IDE support
Ceylon has reified generics, so it doesn't loose the type of collections at runtime. This makes autocompletion, debugging, etc. first-class. The Eclipse plugin makes it a full-fledged Ceylon IDE, and an IntelliJ IDEA plugin is in the works.
Pro Great tutorial
Gavin King, main author of the language, has a great, clear technical writing style, making understandable difficult concepts like variance or sound type system.
Pro Try it out in the browser
It has a Web IDE: http://try.ceylon-lang.org/ with impressive demos: http://try.ceylon-lang.org/?gist=bd41b47f325b6d32514a so you can try it without installing anything, and see the JS generation / interop in action.
Pro Excellent documentation
The language specification is very complete and up to date; also, the language module is very well documented.
Pro Easy to learn even if you don't have prior programming experience
Ceylon is indeed fairly easy and readable. Of course those ones who know OOP and a bit of functional programming concepts will feel almost at home right from the start.
Pro Generate HTML
HTML generation is supported right in the SDK.
Pro Same code in backend and frontend
Con fringe use
Con Poor ecosystem
Not a mainstream programming language.
Con Lack of physical or electronic books
We should hope Red Hat or anyone interested would take the time and write one. That would strengthen the maturity of the language, but Ceylon is rapidly developing which can make the author's efforts futile because his or hers work will become obsolete soon.
The second hindrance is, of course, popularity of the language which can't give much to the pockets of the author (however, Dart's unpopularity at start didn't prevent it to have a lot of printed material, but that's Google's child, we know).
Con Currently has large runtime
Ceylon 1.2 needs a language runtime of 1.55 MiB, and the Collection library adds another 370 KiB. That's a lot for the Web...
Now, this has to be put in perspective: if you use Ceylon to make a web application, these files will be loaded once, then cached by the browser (that's not casual browsing).
Moreover, most servers compress such resource, and the numbers become respectively 234 KiB and 54 KiB, which is more reasonable...