I think the post does a good job of arguing against your position here (and thus of explaining why literate programming has been such a failure). Literate progr

I think the post does a good job of arguing against your position here (and thus of explaining why literate programming has been such a failure). Literate programming misunderstands what code is, and so misunderstands how we go about understanding code. Literate programming imagines code is like a book, i.e., something that we understand by contemplating it. The post argues (I think correctly), that code is more like an organism or a mechanism, which can best be understood by observing it in action, or by interacting with it.