---
Oh hey awesome! Could you see applications for e.g. sitting down with a non-technical person and having them construct working software? That was something that really interested me: the claim that non-programmers could use it.
What you say about how it reminded you of LISP is just fascinating. When I had refined my attempt to implement some HOS-like thing I eventually came up with something that I recognized (later, when I had learned LISP) as a crude subset of that.
Imagine a system that uses a stack, like Forth, but the words/functions are built out of the three primitives (Sequence, Branch, Loop) in, uh, "HOS-style". Give it S-expr syntax and squint and I see a crude proto-LISP. ;-D
(seq ...)
(branch (...) (...))
(loop ...)Alternatively a psychadelic reaction in the brain combined with something like Oxytocin's claimed properties for enhancing trust. Then the person that shows up convinces the person in contact with the paper that what they're told is true. Many possibilities.
" Could you see applications for e.g. sitting down with a non-technical person and having them construct working software?"
What I see is it's like a combination of old CASE tools, a bit of functional programming, logical composition (see LCF provers), and a pile of dishonest marketing (aka "overselling"). I'm currently in a discussion about it elsewhere given Dijkstra personally nuked it while others found problems. Email me if you want and I'll give you a summary of some of that along with controversies that aren't settled yet.
Unrelated note: I bought that book on Hamilton's methods. Finished it last night. Really enjoyed it outside of the filler, repetative, and overselling parts. The sections on requirements, specs, and spec-to-code (in abstract) were still accurate today for the most part. The HOS method itself reminded me of original LISP where its power and beauty came from how it reduced everything to a few primitives. Like LISP 1.0, there were severe usability & performance problems that prevented wider success. Fun to at least read on an early attempt.