urbit

The language designer must be a fan of writing assembly language, combined with some LISPy syntax, or something... that's the closest analogy I can think of from looking at it. Maybe it requires some IDE type of editor to make it comprehensible. From the authors: Its syntax is entirely novel and initially quite frightening. [...] If I can summarize Hoon's goal, it's to be the C of functional programming. [...] On the other hand, the apparent complexity of Hoon is very high. When you open a Hoon file, you are confronted with an enormous avalanche of barely structured line noise. Again this reminds us of C, which makes no attempt at the kind of abstract prettiness we expect from a Pascal or a Haskell. Learning Hoon involves learning nearly 100 ASCII digraph "runes." Is this a hars

I find the original blog posts [1] a really interesting read. Nowadays Urbit is indeed full of buzzwords, “your personal cloud computer” and the like. But initially, Urbit was this [2]: > Urbit is a new programming and execution environment designed from scratch. Any resemblance to existing languages or operating systems is coincidental, cosmetic, or inevitable. It was based on this idea: suppose that a different civilization (Martians specifically) had invented computing long before humans. Then by now they would have perfected it. What would their system look like? Urbit is an attempt to rethink computing without the bias of human research and our current intuition. At the heart of Urbit is Nock, a “functional assembly language”. Zero is intentionally used to denote “true” to defy programmer intuition. [1]: https://moronlab.blogspot.com

There is what amounts to a direct claim of purposeful obfuscation here: https://github.com/cgyarvin/urbit/blob/master/doc/book/1-noc... > We should note that in Nock and Hoon, 0 (pronounced "yes") is true, and 1 ("no") is false. Why? It's fresh, it's different, it's new. And it's annoying. And it keeps you on your toes. And it's also just intuitively right.