[urbit]

Don't worry - the test of a system is what it can do. If we were ready to show you what it can do, we'd have released it intentionally instead of unintentionally.

It's very difficult for a language, good or bad, to compete on its own merits or even demerits. C is a better language than Pascal, but people didn't start programming in C because of that - they started programming in C because the native language of Unix was C, and they wanted to program in Unix. Why did they want to program in Unix? Because, relative to its competitors in the minicomputer OS market, Unix was a better way to solve their problems. This is the normal way that new languages achieve adoption - they ride on the back of a new platform, which rides on the back of new solutions to (typically) new problems.

Today you see a lot of apps like Buffer and Slack, which are very successful in terms of userbase and even revenue. From a certain perspective, the value these apps are adding is very minimal - Buffer is... what, cron? And yet, there is a considerable distance between an AWS box in the cloud and a Buffer instance. A lot of value actually is being added.

Most of the code in a product of this type is actually the (usually somewhat) general framework that sits between the Linux ABI and the application logic/UI. Essentially there's a type of Greenspun's Law in play. If you build a layer like this, but as a true operating environment rather than an internal framework, the result is a VM in which the distance from a virgin instance to many of these kinds of apps is much smaller. In a familiar Valley pattern, they then become commoditized and have more trouble extracting rents.

If it's possible to provide this kind of value, which we certainly haven't yet demonstrated, I can assure you quite confidently that a flashcard or two is not an obstacle. I'm in my 40s, so I know how hard it is for a middle-aged dog to learn new tricks. But it's not that hard.

[jrochkind1]

On the other hand, if people had found C very difficult to program in, it probably would have hurt the adoption of unix.

In fact, if I understand the history, developers and sysadmins generally found C an improvement on their previous tools, and generally saw how it was so fairly quickly, without a lot of convincing.

You keep insisting that the... oddities of your language aren't really barriers, aren't as difficult as they seem, really aren't much worse than the conventional way to do things. But I think I've missed it if you've tried to explain why they are supposed to be better, what the justification is for such an unconventional approach, what it's supposed to actually accomplish to be worth it.

(beyond no reserved keywords in the domain of a-zA-Z, only reserved punctuation instead... which I don't think is convincing many people, who haven't really had much of a problem with reserved keywords).

(And the 'reserved keywords' thing doesn't even apply to your "lapidary" thing, which you insist really isn't that hard to deal with once you get used to it, which may or may not be true for people... but what makes it _better_, what's the point? Why not just use meaningful variable names everywhere, instead of taking an extra step to decide if it 'needs' meaningful variable names, or if instead obfuscated 'lapidary' variable names are sufficient? Maybe they're sufficient maybe they aren't, but what's the point, what's the harm in just using meaningful variable names in case they are helpful for a future reader?)

[urbit]

If you look below I've made arguments for all these things, but let me try to address them here. Compare

  ++  add
    |=  [a=@ b=@]
    ^-  @
    ?:  =(0 a)  b
    $(a (dec a), b +(b))

to

   attribute add {
     function(left-operand: atom, right-operand: atom)
     produce atom
     if equals(0, left-operand) {
      right-operand
     } else {
        recurse(left-operand (decrement left-operand)), 
                right-operand (increment right-operand))
     }
   }

As for the variable names, I can think of very few programmers who would insist that "left-operand" and "right-operand" are better names, in this context, then "a" and "b".

Using "a" and "b" accurately expresses the simplicity of the algorithm, and nothing could be easier to read. OLV in "add" says: there is nothing interesting here. "left-operand" and "right-operand" says: there is some semantic meaning here, which you have to trouble your brain to understand. But actually, it's just pointless wordiness - in this case.

As for the syntax, you no doubt can read my wordy example better. But a programming language is a professional tool, not a toy. Anything new demands a genuine investment to learn - this investment has to be paid off by actual productivity.

And people are, as I've said, much better at learning random associations than they think. Again, we've taught this syntax to everyone from Haskell jocks to JS cruft-jockeys to innocent CS 101 victims. The biggest problem - and it is a problem - is not that it it is hard, but that it seems hard.