> These interactions increase the knowledge burden that must be retained at all times to be able to make sense of what you are reading. This burden is on top of

> These interactions increase the knowledge burden that must be retained at all times to be able to make sense of what you are reading. This burden is on top of any knowledge burden you need to carry in relation to the application you are modifying or maintaining. That's why you have a Lisp where you can interactively explore the running program. > Lisp had the beginnings of "wow", but then it took a wrong turn down into a semantic quagmire. Scheme started to fix that and later Kernel was another attempt. I think that's misguided. Lisp is not a semantic quagmire that was tried to be fixed with Scheme or Kernel. As a Lisp user, I find it great that someone tries to revive Fexprs, but practically it has no meaning for me. Lisp is actually a real programming language and its users have and are determining what features it has.