> I don't think anyone would disagree that PL theory, as a body of work, has produced a set of languages whose penetration in the real world is oddly small both given (a) the investment in these technologies, and (b) the many real advantages of typed higher-order programming.

I'm a PL theorist, and I disagree.

Who cares about your opinion on PL theory, its practitioners, and its textbooks? Is internalizing your hate for TAPL necessary for understanding the semantics of Urbit and related technologies? Why don't you just state succinctly what your ideas are and let them stand on their own merits.

That being said, I have no idea what your ideas are. Your website is unintelligible. Ironically, one of the things PL theory provides is a common vocabulary amongst practioners, which helps us communicate. I shouldn't have to learn a new alphabet (or in your parlance, a set of runes?) to figure out what new ideas you bring to the table. That kind of stuff is just not interesting to me. It's like if you 'rejected' English and wrote the rest of your work in Esperanto.