“What next?”
[Aside: Why do I have the Whiley (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;whiley.org&#x2F;about&#x2F;overview&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;whiley.org&#x2F;about&#x2F;overview&#x2F;</a>) link marked seen?]<p>I was mildly curious why Graydon didn&#x27;t mention my current, mildly passionate affair, Pony (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ponylang.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ponylang.org&#x2F;</a>), and its use of capabilities (and actors, and per-actor garbage collection, etc.). Then, I saw,<p>&quot;<i>I had some extended notes here about &quot;less-mainstream paradigms&quot; and&#x2F;or &quot;things I wouldn&#x27;t even recommend pursuing&quot;, but on reflection, I think it&#x27;s kinda a bummer to draw too much attention to them. So I&#x27;ll just leave it at a short list: actors, software transactional memory, lazy evaluation, backtracking, memoizing, &quot;graphical&quot; and&#x2F;or two-dimensional languages, and user-extensible syntax.</i>&quot;<p>Which is mildly upsetting, given that Graydon is one of my spirit animals for programming languages.<p>On the other hand, his bit on ESC&#x2F;dependent typing&#x2F;verification tech. covers all my bases: &quot;<i>If you want to play in this space, you ought to study at least Sage, Stardust, Whiley, Frama-C, SPARK-2014, Dafny, F∗, ATS, Xanadu, Idris, Zombie-Trellys, Dependent Haskell, and Liquid Haskell.</i>&quot;<p>So I&#x27;m mostly as happy as a pig in a blanket. (Specifically, take a look at Dafny (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;Microsoft&#x2F;dafny" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;Microsoft&#x2F;dafny</a>) (probably the poster child for the verification approach) and Idris (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.idris-lang.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.idris-lang.org&#x2F;</a>) (voted most likely to be generally usable of the dependently typed languages).