Speaking as someone who&#x27;s been following the project for a few years and once actually bothered to learn Hoon, your first paragraph is probably the best criticism of Urbit I&#x27;ve seen. I do think there is an interesting system buried under all the obfuscation, but the uncritical groupthink within its user base is obnoxious. I kind of doubt &quot;produce a vanguard of true believers&quot; is a primary goal of the project, but Yarvin doesn&#x27;t really seem to discourage that behavior either.<p>That said, the old &quot;it&#x27;s just typical Moldbug&quot; trope isn&#x27;t much better than the propaganda his followers spout, and the rest is pretty weak too. AFAIK, the Urbit term for &quot;file&quot; is &quot;file&quot;. I don&#x27;t know which funny weird name you&#x27;re thinking of for &quot;network endpoint&quot;, as that&#x27;s not really a separate concept in the system. Hoon&#x27;s cores (which I assume you&#x27;re at least passingly familiar with) are pretty distinct from closures in any language I know... I mean, do you also complain that Java uses the word &quot;object&quot;? (Forgive me if I omit the part where I ascribe sinister motives to the creators of Java due to their choice of vocabulary.)<p>As for &quot;implementations of well-known computer science concepts&quot;, cue Rich Hickey[1]:<p>&gt; It&#x27;s interesting, because Clojure provides almost nothing you can’t find somewhere else. But I do think it occupies an otherwise empty spot in the multidimensional space of language features and capabilities.<p>In other words, even if your claim is true, it describes almost every project in computing in the last 15 years. We might as well say &quot;oh it&#x27;s just event sourcing&quot; and call it a day.<p>[1]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;codequarterly.com&#x2F;2011&#x2F;rich-hickey&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;codequarterly.com&#x2F;2011&#x2F;rich-hickey&#x2F;</a>