I have been saying stuff like this for years, although not as eloquently or detailed. But now Chris Granger is saying it, and no one can say he's not a "real" programmer, so you have to listen.
I think it boils down to a cultural failure, like the article mentions at the end. For example, I am a programmer myself. Which means that I generate and work with lots of static, cryptic colorful ASCII text program sources. If I stop doing that, I'm not a programmer anymore. By definition. I really think that is the definition of programming, and that is the big issue.
I wonder if the current version of Aurora derives any inspiration from "intentional programming"?
Also wonder when we can see a demo of the new version.
> I wonder if the current version of Aurora derives any inspiration from "intentional programming"?
The long term vision definitely does. At the moment we are mostly focused on building a good glue language. By itself it is already very capable for building CRUD apps and reactive UIs. If we can nail the tooling and make it as approachable as excel then that gives us a solid platform for more adventurous research.
I think it boils down to a cultural failure, like the article mentions at the end. For example, I am a programmer myself. Which means that I generate and work with lots of static, cryptic colorful ASCII text program sources. If I stop doing that, I'm not a programmer anymore. By definition. I really think that is the definition of programming, and that is the big issue.
I wonder if the current version of Aurora derives any inspiration from "intentional programming"?
Also wonder when we can see a demo of the new version.