> I am glad that JP have done something sensible here, I doubt that. For over 20 years people have been pinning their hopes on new languages and "paradigms" t

> I am glad that JP have done something sensible here, I doubt that. For over 20 years people have been pinning their hopes on new languages and "paradigms" to make things better. Things haven't progressed a lot with that strategy. I blame this on how software architects don't, and programmers can't, and because of that they all hedge their bets on new language X with feature Y, hoping it will make all the hard bits go away. It's akin to how in the creative writing world, writers sometimes dive deep into the grammar and vocabulary of a particular natural language whereas the real challenge is thinking up new and entertaining situations and characters, and then filling that in with words in whatever language you happen to be proficient in. Literate programming has been a concept for a long time now: write a document that explains, understandably, what the software is supposed to do, then accompany it with some source in whatever language the programmer is most comfortable with. In a perfect world, that would be called "doing you job". In our current world, there is no money to be made in "doing your job" and it will be heckled as slow or outdated; praying for deliverance is much more profitable. The too long, didn't read: Turing and Church proved that, fundamentally, all languages suck, so no new language will ever save one from one's own incompetence. Maybe it's time we all stopped blaming or praising "the language" wholesale for the various inadequacies and blind spots in our branch of industry.