I've often thought about how tricky/silly it must be to work in some domains using tools of other domains.

For example, I work with cartographic data and the darn mathies and programmers stole all our words. So I end up performing a map on a Map of maps. Or managing vector of vector layers. Naming is hard but this is ridiculous.

Using mockup tools to make mockup tools probably has its own set of ridiculous collisions.

My favorite recursive entity is the Stanford Academic Senate’s Committee on Committees. I imagine the inaugural meeting, called to order some time in 1957, is still ongoing to this day.

It's not too different from having a C compiler written in C. Once you bootstrap[1] the first version, you can create subsequent versions from the first one.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping_%28compilers%29

Sure I get that. It's just visually I know that when I'm taking screenshots of app windows, and I have said windows open, I confuse myself sometimes. If I were trying to mockup a mockup app I'd want to use a different, visually distinct, tool.

Yea but be careful, I checked out coffeescript years ago (technically a "transpile" to JS). I changed the language then built a new compiler with it.

However I apparently added some error in the language and the compiler was then broken, so I couldn't make my fix and re-transpile without checking out a clean version of the repo :D

It just looks like a remote desktop to localhost so you get one of those "mirrors to infinity" views.

This is probably a joke, but you can avoid this by having a pretend application for your mockups instead of the real one. So it would go InVision app > InVision mockup > pretend app.

I get this daily on meetings, when someone screenshares Hangouts viewing their screen.

I think most great products have that recursive iterative cycle.