It doesn't. You will not be using this language. And even if you will, you'll get all the information from a documentation, not from this article. If your time is money you wasted your time reading the article.

Really why some people believe that all the content of Internet must be attuned to their personal quirks? Why they believe that it is better to change internet, than to adapt to what is already here? It is a text, not video or something sequential. You could scan it diagonally looking for something that is interesting for you. You could reject it if nothing was found. Or you could return to the beginning and read sequentially from there. And these features are available for a text structured in any way. I highly recommend to learn the technique, it could deal with whole books, by selecting useful pages to read and rejecting most of other pages, which tell you nothing new.

I'd argue that diverse article styles are much better, because they force you to consciously and actively sort through information you are consuming. You shouldn't do it passively, becouse your mind becomes lazy and stop thinking while consuming.

OTOH I would agree with you if it was not a text but a video. I hate videos because you need to decide upfront are you investing time into watching it or not. 2x speed and skips by 5-10 seconds helps somehow, but do not solve the problem.

Sometimes it's inappropriate, and ultimately the author is the best judge of this.

If you view text composition as a UX problem, it will help you figure out when to use the tool and when not to.

Examples where it isn't used (clickbait headlines, recipe blogs with three pages of meandering before they get to the ingredients, SEO "optimised" youtube videos) are, IMO, examples of dark UX patterns more often than not. But your use-case may be valid.

(This comment written using an inverted pyramid structure).

Hard disagree, not always we read things which has a direct impact on what we do. Sometimes ideas in one area can spark solutions for other problems.

Imagine aerospace engineers never looking at birds, or military equipment not getting inspiration from chameleons.

Of course, but this effect is unpredictable. You could get an idea while reading some fiction, because the plot sparked some chain reaction of associations in your brain. But if it will happens or not is not predictable on basis of an abstract of an article. GP clearly talks about something else.

> military equipment not getting inspiration from chameleons.

A good example. If your goal is to fight the enemies it will be counterproductive to seeks for black swans by finding and studying new life forms. But you can still do it in a "fishing mode", just looking for something that seems interesting.

Science is living on a government support exactly because it is unpredictable. It can sometimes discover electricity, but most of the efforts of scientists gives little to no useful knowledge. One cannot know a priori if their research will have a big impact or not.

I read the OP as constructive feedback not an attack. I also think that their advice is practically bog standard writing advice not a personality quirk.

I would also suggest that you might look in the mirror at your own comment when accusing someone of imposing their personality quirks on someone else.

Aside from the tone, the specific feedback was also a miss, imo. It was written from the standpoint of as if they were reading a marketing page, or a show hn post, which it is not. It is simply a blog post. An article. To me it provided a bunch of context and was kind of enjoyable.

When you have a marketing page or some kind of "check it out" post, there is a certain level of expectation that the reader can expect and it's even reasonable to complain when the given post does not get to the point. I agree with that.

This is not such a thing

By the way, what even defines "simply a blog post"? That's just a media format that doesn't say much about the content itself, does it? I do agree with the sentiment that it would have been good to know what the article is even going to be. Not even the paragraphs were very helpful in this regard. It does improve the reception of an article if it meets the intended audience.

In retrospect, this article is mostly about a basic compiler frontend language and how to bootstrap that into a fully-featured concatenative programming language. Which to me personally is a "hm, okay, interesting" kind of thing but I didn't read the article for this premise. I read it for the "new antisyntax language" and feel it was clickbaitish.

That, to me, is much more useful to gauge my interest than your proposed introduction.

It's clearly not the most important part of the project but it serves to illustrate the kind of problem that the project intends to solve. Without something like this section the following sections would be even more difficult to understand.

For instance;

> This makes the left and right parenthesis unchangable from within the language

The parenthesis character in Common Lisp can be redefined, even just temporarily, to anything you want.

This is a misunderstanding and shouldn't be in your opening play.

It sounds like the author thought of something they felt were neat, but felt they had to justify its existence first by a quick pot-shot. It would be more effective if either it were correct, or they just described their own creation from the get-go.

It was never meant to be a pot-shot, and I have nothing against lisp. I can tell why it reads that way, and we added that in because we wanted to illustrate why people should care.

As to your claim about us being wrong: I don't have an issue with being wrong, and maybe at the same time we are. At the same time, I think it is possible that there are misunderstandings that cause people to believe we aren't doing something new. Again, maybe we're not.

We're two 18 year olds, fresh out of high school. It's a research project, but we're not graduate students.

A lot of these comments are claiming it's not new because reader macros exist. From my understanding, our tokenization system is unique because it can all be done at runtime without backtracking or executing anything instantly, which is possible because cognition always makes use of the text read in, and never makes use of anything not yet read in, which means you don't have to backtrack. I mean, you could backtrack but it would be less elegant.

If I'm wrong about this then that's fine but then we still made something cool without even knowing it existed beforehand.

On the other hand, I'm adding it to my list of examples of "left handed scissors" languages, along with LISP and FORTH themselves. Languages which a few percent of people regard as more intuitive but most users do not and prefer ALGOL derivatives.

Like if you want to integrate JSON or XML into the language syntax you can.

Rather ironic to use it as an example of inflexible syntax.

Here's an example which adds completely integrated JSON support in under 100 lines of code, using only standard language APIs: https://gist.github.com/chaitanyagupta/9324402

If it was “look, shktshfdthjkl\n\nbhhj, so cool”, it would signal rocket rainbow unicorn and lose me at that. IMO we need more properly structured non-SV prose like this in tech, not less.