I find this very interesting. Really, there is a larger principle here: that in today's world, languages become popular, in part, by encouraging social connecte

I find this very interesting. Really, there is a larger principle here: that in today's world, languages become popular, in part, by encouraging social connectedness, e.g., forums for solving problems, interoperability between different codebases, etc. The author's point, then, is that, perversely, one way to encourage social connectedness, is to be almost-but-not-quite powerful enough that one person can do everything alone. I find a couple of misconceptions, though. The most glaring is the lack of distinction between conceiving an idea, and implementing it. This is best exemplified by the following: > In a world where teams of talented academics were needed to write Haskell, one man, Dr. Tarver wrote Qi all by his lonesome. Teams of talented academics, building on the work of others going back decades, were required to design Haskell. Once that design was done, anyone could copy it. Sure, Tarver implemented Qi all by himself, and the fact that he could is significant. But let's not talk as if Qi is based entirely on ideas that he made up himself without considering the work of others.