Yes, weird depends. PG's point is, again, about finding new pockets of programming, not necessarily finding the best tool -- meta or not -- for a task at hand.

Yes, weird depends. PG's point is, again, about finding new pockets of programming, not necessarily finding the best tool -- meta or not -- for a task at hand. Fine, everything is binary code in the end; it doesn't mean there aren't different abstractions that can be made on top of it, obviously. You are probably right that PG is biased towards "hacking" rather than team software engineering by him implying that the 99.5% of "glue programming" is boring. There is potential for a lot of mastery on the glue front, but this point about weirdness is about the remaining 0.5% and how to access it via the language route. Personally I'd be interested to hear what PG says about the weirdness of OOP...