Didn't you end it with a new product name? I left the auditorium a little disappointed, I got a vague impression that LT wasn't living up to your expectations or something.

The project has a different name, but it's not divergent from LT, it's an extension of it. JS, Python, and even Clojure are far from the ideal for what we could be doing if we took the ideas behind LT to a logical extreme. What I showed is a very early example of what that might look like.

My end goal is to "fix" programming, that talk was me explaining that it will take far more than what I originally showed in those first videos of Light Table - we'll have to think about the problem differently. That doesn't detract from the value of LT in any way, and I still believe it's out to fill a very important gap in the programming world. But filling a gap is just the first step, not the end of the line. And since we have the opportunity to push some boundaries and try to find something "better", I fully intend to do so. :)

To be more explicit - LT is our focus and you'll see more and more of the thinking I expressed in my Strange Loop talk start to show in it over time.

I interpreted it (aurora), as the next gen instarepl. A tool that helps you introspect running code and intermediate results, but more ambitious than just textual substitution of variable values. It would fit right in as a component of light table.

I really liked how some of the inspiration came from how non programmers code. Think excel macros (gasp).