[madhadron]

1. "This style" is kind of hard to pin down. If you mean Chuck Moore's dramatic minimalism, then, yes, but it won't resemble what most people in computing expect from a browser or photo editor. If you mean expressing the abstractions you want directly in the primitives you have without bothering about layers or even accepting the idea of higher vs lower levels, then, yes, certainly. It requires a lot of unlearning, though.

2. Sourceless programming was something Chuck Moore tried for a while where he designed a machine that was the virtual machine he wanted to program, implemented it in hardware, and then edited byte code directly for it. Later he stepped back and went to colorForth, which has the source/binary separation we are all accustomed to.

[bcherny]

Thanks for the reply!

> but it won't resemble what most people in computing expect from a browser or photo editor.

In the sense that an end user would interact with some low level API primitives, rather than a full GUI? I’d love more examples or metaphors, or maybe a link where I could learn more.

[snazz]

Chuck Moore’s software is somewhat famous for reducing the complexity of both the software itself as well as the requirements. In developing a web browser, he would probably eliminate all of JavaScript, the user interface, and most of CSS, and leave it to run only on a chip he designed for the purpose. His ideology is super cool, but isn’t what is expected of software like this.

For instance, OKAD (chip design and simulation CAD package) is 500 lines of colorForth. Although it includes all sorts of fancy tools, he also applied his ruthless minimalism to the requirements.

[brokenkebab]

I would welcome all of these except maybe a separate chip. E.g. having 3 separate languages built in a browser does look like a overcomplication.