> Really, these are not practical solutions for practical problems. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make something like this, but they'll just be toys fo

> Really, these are not practical solutions for practical problems. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make something like this, but they'll just be toys for fun, not real solutions to real problems and if you expect them to be anything like that you'd be disappointed. I agree. I like the idea, but there's no way it would get traction without solving a concrete (rather than aesthetic) problem. It is possible though: the more expressive/powerful a system is, the less we can know/guarantee/figure-out about it. Adding features does have downsides. For example, people are starting to pay attention to pure functional programming, since the restrictions it requires (e.g. immutability, referential transparency, confluent evaluation, etc.) provide lots of nice solutions for things like concurrent, distributed systems. The classic example on the Web is search: if sites didn't work with dumb, lightweight user agents (search bots), it could have a real commercial impact. These days the big search engines use browser-derived bots, which has changed the dynamics a little; but the core point remains the same. If people find concrete problems or opportunities faced by Web sites, which would be useful to solve automatically, but where the complexities of the current Web prevent that, then perhaps people could be convinced to use a restricted subset of the Web.