I like this because it addresses part of the problem of why I&#x27;ve stopped paying any attention to PLT related topics like denotational semantics, monads, category theory, and higher-order&#x2F;dependent static type systems in general.<p>In my day to day work the programming language is never the problem because hacking around the limitations of the language to bridge the gap between the problem domain and the computational domain is never the bottleneck. The real problem is when these systems go into production and all static guarantees and beautiful abstractions become basically useless. What I want is something to help me reason about dynamic and evolving large scale software systems. What I get is PLT researchers and library authors bickering over dependent types, monads, and continuations.<p>Here&#x27;s a concrete and unsolved problem. How do you specify some kind of topology for your production environment and then have whatever system understands this specification reason about performance, error recovery, failover, and scaling issues. In fact the lower level components don&#x27;t even matter because you could write it in Haskell or Python or Java or whatever is your favorite language. Right now there is nothing because everyone is arguing about continuations and monads. Basically everyone involved is thinking too small. The one person that I think comes close to approaching the problem from the right angle is <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cl.cam.ac.uk&#x2F;~srk31&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cl.cam.ac.uk&#x2F;~srk31&#x2F;</a>.