Contrary to what others are saying... From my time spent in MUDs/MOOs 30ish years ago and the languages we were playing with then, I can see plenty here that actually does relate to the problem of programming in a large scale shared-state world aka "multiverse" (hate the world)

Transactionality. Check. ACID type semantics are absolutely key to handling the concurrency issues created by a world with thousands of authors/programmers and concurrent actions. This is not the place for locks.

Declarative. Essential. This is going to be the only way to manage the complexity of interactions on a large scale. Though perhaps I don't jibe with the particular form described here and would instead encourage a more relational/datalog type approach, but that's my bias.

And management of mutable state / side-effects, through functional type approaches also seems key. Not just for expressing problems elegantly, but also for security / visibility management.

Some of the interesting things in here (approach to truth values etc) have a vibe similar to the approaches behind evaluation in a Datalog but also look similar in spirit to some of what's behind my employer's (RelationalAI) knowledge management programming language, Rel: https://docs.relational.ai/rel/primer/overview

Finally, people saying it looks difficult to learn, I think that for many people working in this kind of environment... it could be their first programming language. So they don't come with the same baggage & expectations about what programming languages are. Back in the 80s and 90s there were all sorts of "game builder" (esp for interactive fiction) type languages that often had what we'd now see as "odd" semantics. But this was part of the advantage. Heterodox approaches often bloom in domain specific locales.

Going to spend some more digging into this after dinner. Neat stuff.