"""<i>Its self-compiling kernel, 7000 lines of code, specifies Hoon unambiguously; there is no Hoon spec.</i>"""<p>You realize there's such a thing as over-specifying something, right? You realize that using source code as a spec does this?<p>If you don't realize; consider that non-data aspects of a program, such as runtime and memory usage and bug compatibility, can sometimes form part of a specification, and sometimes don't. A specification says as much what is <i>not</i> required of an implementation as what <i>is</i> required. By claiming your one true implementation is <i>the</i> spec, one has no means of ascertaining what behavior is incidental, and what is actually required/able to be relied upon.<p>I'm not normally an XKCD fan, but this strip sums it up perfectly: <a href="http://xkcd.com/1172/" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/1172/</a><p>.<p>"""<i>Hoon can be classified as a pure, strict higher-order static type-inferred functional language, with co/contra/bivariance and genericity. However, Hoon does not use lambda calculus,</i>"""<p>A higher-order functional language does not "use" the mathematical definition of higher-order functions? In that case, what do you mean by "higher-order functional language"?<p>EDIT: I was going to make an analogy to the hypothetical claim that language X's arithmetic system doesn't use Church numerals (i.e. the mathematical formulation of natural numbers)… <i>but Hoon is actually implemented using Church arithmetic</i>. Go figure.<p>.<p>"""<i>unification,</i>"""<p>By what mechanism does Hoon implement type inference? Honestly, that's kind of like saying Hoon doesn't use, say, queues. Great, but, why?<p>.<p>"""<i>or other constructs from “PL theory.”</i>"""<p>Disdainful much? I'm really curious what's the background behind the scare quotes here.<p>.<p>EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not claiming your project is uninteresting or not worth your while. I just feel you're being overly dismissive of the, let's say "traditional" schools of thought, with invalid justification.