In our first conversations we chose to focus on the concept of synchronization, that now became a bit more general than how we originally intended. The same happened with the idea of re-formulation, of realizing something in a multitude of media. Which we did but, at some point, I think with the development of WRECK, instead of formulating it in many languages it became the creation of a language.
Well I found quite interesting how, in that short period of time, you also used many languages. Elm, Haskell, OCaml, Supercollider. That was interesting to see because, as you have seen from what I'm doing, I'm translating from all languages to this language.
Although for me these three languages are really variations of one language. It's like: ok, I do need mutables, so I go OCaml. I need some more abstract monads, I go Haskell. Or, if I need to put it on internet I go Elm.
Also there is a certain feeling that the languages give you, no? And it's also something that you, David, I can see in your work. You strive for purity in some way. And I also enjoy this about Rust. There is something in that feeling, like I'm really there, there is no big abstraction here. You know, I'm doing this stuff and I'm kind of touching it somehow. And then, like with Haskell, it is this huge thing. It kind of teaches me. It knows more than me somehow and, if I formulate correctly, then I will also understand something about programming, and about abstracting, and so on. But OCaml is different also. It's like nice abstractions but smaller and more handleable. That's why we moved also to OCaml for WRECK. Because it was just too abstract in Haskell.