I understand the concept of intentional programming in this way: 1) start with Lisp, complete with macros 2) add multiple skins: some of them are basically a

I understand the concept of intentional programming in this way: 1) start with Lisp, complete with macros 2) add multiple skins: some of them are basically a C-syntax representation of the program, some might be visual programming (connecting diagrams or spreadsheet-like), they can be of different level of abstraction and can be mixed freely. Remember, lisp macros pretty much do this, only they are constrained to S-expressions while intentional programming should be freely skinnable. 3) they claim the result is great If it is, I'd be surprised. They developed it for what, 10-15 years, without showing it to the public, and even without using an axiomatic approach (they didn't start from Lisp, they started from C and built APIs to manipulate the syntax trees). The most important things about their system: - how easy would it be to build new abstractions in this environment - how easy is it to mix and match abstractions developed independently and unaware of each other - how comfortable are hackers with the requirement for heavy supporting tools from a single vendor Early previews don't really say much about these points.