Things I really liked:<p>+ recording runs as tests<p>+ one library for all layers of abstraction<p>+ building in assembler to avoid the big runtime.<p>+ using literate programming techniques to manage coding in assembly.<p>+ scenario, &quot;screen-should-contain&quot; and &quot;assume-keyboard&quot;. awesome.<p>+ spaces: nice primitive of the closure and similar concepts<p>+ attributes for meta programs. again, awesome.<p>+ labels and using [,] as labels. genius.<p>Suggestions:<p>* If there&#x27;s a valid reason to call them recipes, go ahead. If they&#x27;re actully just functions, please stick with what everyone knows and gets. Same thing with &quot;reagents&quot;,&quot;reply&quot;, &quot;ingredients&quot; and &quot;products&quot;. Update: I did read your blog post about this. still think the regular names are better in the long run.<p>* I dont know where you&#x27;re going to with multiple types of the &quot;number:list&quot; kind, but if so, the map must look the same, not lispy.<p>In all, I really like where you&#x27;re going with this. Kudos!
I find a lot of resonance of ideas I&#x27;ve had for a long time now.