[gintas]

> I would really like to write an entire program sometime as a big tree, that would be convertable back and forth to something simple like JSON.

That would be Lisp.

> convert my simple statements like "when this sprite touches this sprite, give them opposite speeds) into the underlying code so I don't have to waste my time with it.

That's function application (if at runtime) or macro expansion (if at compile time).

[zackmorris]

Ya but both of those don't work in the real world, at least not very well (or beginners would be able to use them). I'm not trying to be negative, just pointing out that existing options are not living up to expectations.

I think I'm talking more about readability than sophistication. I want to write in a high level language like Hypertalk (from the HyperCard days) and let the compiler create a series of permutations under the hood that I could review and say "yes that one works, use it" and then maybe the compiler could annotate my code with more precise limits on what I said. So for example I tell it I want to sort a list, it shows me algorithms that sort numbers, strings and objects, and I say "yes strings are good enough" and it shows me the updated version of my code showing that it requires strings.

I know that sounds a little weird but this is 90% of the minutiae that I deal with on a daily basis and I am thoroughly disgusted with how myopic and restrictive tools have become today. They break when I forget a semicolon, when I would much rather have them show me an edge case of my algorithm that is incorrect.

[pnathan]

Actually, Lisp works fine for beginners. It's simply not the current fad.

I use Lisp by preference because it's so much easier to express my ideas without whacking on the syntax mole.