I am currently developing a project in APL - it was in my backlog for a long time but I'm actually writing code now. I phrase it that way because there was a p

I am currently developing a project in APL - it was in my backlog for a long time but I'm actually writing code now. I phrase it that way because there was a pretty long lag between when I got interested and when I was able to start using it in more than one-liners. But I discovered this paper early in that process and devoured it. The concepts are completely foundational to my thinking now. Saying all this to lead to the fact that I actually teach NAATOT in an architecture program. Not software architecture - building architecture. I have edited a version to hit Iverson's key points, kept in just enough of the actual math / programming to illustrate these points and challenge the students to try to think differently about the possibilities for the design and representation tools they use, eg their processes for forming ideas, their ways of expressing them to themselves and others, and so forth. If I had the chance (a more loose, open-ended program rather than an undergraduate professional program) one of my dreams is to run a course where students would make their own symbolic and notational systems... (specifically applied to the domain of designing architecture - this is already pretty well covered in CS, graphic design, data science, etc.)