> I could see how the same language could be used for ADLs and programming I don't buy that there is an actually meaningful distinction between "ADL" and "prog

> I could see how the same language could be used for ADLs and programming I don't buy that there is an actually meaningful distinction between "ADL" and "programming". That's the point. Programming today is almost entirely composing existing procedures/functions/object/modules/libraries/programs in order to build a system. > but that implies programming all done in one language Why on earth would it imply that? It's not like there currently is only one "general purpose" language or just one "integration language". Objective-C is also a language that combines the integration mechanism ("Objective-") with the "programming" part ("C"). See Brad Cox's writing. But why have the integration mechanism be only messaging? Why not support others as well? And despite Objective-C combining these two aspects, there are other languages. And in fact, Objective-C is particularly good at talking to other languages. Objective-S is that, and also particularly good at talking to filters/pipelines (or being placed in a Unix pipe) and also particularly good at talking to REST servers via HTTP, and at creating modules that are accessed via HTTP by anyone. And at talking to filesystems and exporting components as FUSE servers. So I really don't get where this There Can Be Only One™ Uber-Language idea is coming from. It is the exact opposite of reality, at least in this case. > I can't think of a language that I'd want to use for everything. I can :-). For some specific definition of "everything". Once I get the native compiler fully working. > [hard part is] motivating everyone to use it. Motivating people to use stuff definitely is a hard part, but not sure why it has to be "everyone". But the way to get there is to identify a problem that is causing sufficient grief and provide a solution that is sufficiently compelling. I think I'm getting there. And then talk about it.