Thanks for the kind words! I'm particularly gratified that you found the literate/ subdirectory. There's some details about it at http://akkartik.name/post/wart

Thanks for the kind words! I'm particularly gratified that you found the literate/ subdirectory. There's some details about it at http://akkartik.name/post/wart-layers http://akkartik.name/post/wart-layers, but it sounds like you understand the point already so I'm preaching to the choir :) "What kind of things have surprised you about Wart during development?" I stopped working on wart at some point for two reasons. First, I realized that I was falling into a blind spot shared with many contemporary programmers: blindly assuming that the way to improve the state of programming was by creating a new language. But there is more to programming than languages. Languages just happen to be memetically tempting sirens to chase after. Second, I painted myself into a corner with wart because I made it too late-bound, so late-bound that it was incredibly inefficient and so hard to optimize. (I think it might still be possible, but I lost patience partly because of the previous point.) I still like my infix scheme and have a particularly soft spot for the way wart allows keyword arguments anywhere in any function call. See, for example, the use of :from in a webserver implementation that makes everything so much clearer: https://github.com/akkartik/wart/blob/ce64882c69/071http_server.wart#L17 https://github.com/akkartik/wart/blob/ce64882c69/071http_ser.... However, I've forced myself to harden my heart and ruthlessly ignore considerations of syntax, and focus on what I think are more impactful directions: conveying global rather than local structure of programs. More details: http://akkartik.name/about http://akkartik.name/about. In brief, I'm working on ways to super-charge automatic tests (by making them white-box, and by designing the core OS services to be easy to test) and version control (using the literate layers you noticed). It's a whole new way of programming where a) readers can ask "why not write this like this?", make a change, run all tests and feel confident that the change is ok if all tests pass; and b) readers can play with a simple version of the program running just layer 1, then gradually learn about new features by running layers 1+2, 1+2+3, and so on. --- "The problem is that it throws away the ability for the code to pull updates from library maintainers. If the import is "pinned" at commit f1d2d2f9, then you push a security-related patch to akkartik/bar, most existing code will stay vulnerable forever, because most code is never maintained after being written." I hadn't considered hard-coding hashes in imports, because it's historically been very hard to truly distinguish compatible changes from incompatible ones without introducing bugs. I think it's more important to give people control over upgrades than to try to improve over the current advisory+pull method of communicating security issues. You're right that most code is never maintained after being written. But most code is also utterly unimportant to anyone including the author. So that failure of security is ok :) Trying to force concern about security only increases the moral hazard -- people get used to other people thinking about their security for them. "were there any ambiguities with indentation-as-parens? I haven't thought about it rigorously, so I was just wondering if there are any corner cases to watch out for when I add it." The big insight, I think, is to not fear parentheses too much. A common failure mode of such approaches (like http://readable.sourceforge.net http://readable.sourceforge.net and http://dustycloud.org/blog/wisp-lisp-alternative http://dustycloud.org/blog/wisp-lisp-alternative) is to create too many new token types and lose the simplicity of lisp syntax. My approach instead is to a) just use parens sooner than look "outright barbarous" (https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm), and b) take it a step further and disable all indent-sensitivity inside parentheses. Anyways, that's my two cents. The precise rules I use are at https://github.com/akkartik/wart/blob/master/004optional_parens https://github.com/akkartik/wart/blob/master/004optional_par.... (They're really in the first couple of sentences there.) --- "Whoaaa, you use tangle/weave! How do you like it / what do you think about literate programming?" Like I said above, I like it very much, especially in combination with tests and a notion of layers. Here's my take on why literate programming has failed so far: http://akkartik.name/post/literate-programming http://akkartik.name/post/literate-programming