I agree 100%. I think however that there are two projects: the "phenomenalist" and the "instrumentalist". In the former part it's a group of polygot philosopher-developers waxing philosophic about the nature of programs and in the latter it's "briefs for lead developers".

Whilst my inclination in being a Husserlian first-and-foremost is to engage in the former, I think the latter is definitely of interest.

The third choice, and this is i think what you mistake my current project to be, is this "binary reductionism" or "symbolic reductionism" where DSLs are either 0/1s or predictate-object statements. I disagree with this entirely, and i think it leads to the current "chose what you like" defeatism.

I would like to explore the middle ground for awhile, an "early heidegger" if you like. I think that's going to get a lot more traction in the implementation community. There is definitely a lot of space at this moment in time for some real substantive work in all non-reductionist areas.

NB. i think my use of "metalogic" has confused at least a couple of people into thinking im talking about something CSy. Logic in the sense a continental philosopher would use it: a mechanism of reasoning. As I say in my "notes on terminology" i mean to include things like the domain/business logic. I think that, for example, that "a car shouldnt start with no fuel" is part of the program (the metalogic of the program, not the logic itself: it is part of what we need to consider to fully understand the progran). Perhaps i shouldve used "meta-rationale" or something.