FoC problem statements

• Kartik Agaram Adapting computers to ourselves is hard.
• Jimmy Miller Our programming environment is the main thing that influences the way we think about software. Much of this learning is implicit. It affects what problems we solve, how we work together, what things we consider possible, what things we consider hard, what arguments we find compelling. There is exists no combination of tools that teach these things in a way that align with my values.
• Ivan Reese
• Arvind Thyagarajan
• Jasmine Otto
• Kartik Agaram
• Jimmy Miller
• Avon
• Eli Mellen
• Paul Tarvydas
• Konrad Hinsen
• Tom Larkworthy
• Dany
• Nilesh Trivedi
• Guyren Howe
• John Christensen
• Jonathan Edwards
• Dennis Hansen
• Jonathan Edwards OK I’ll play. The problem is that software development is shattered into a stack of special-purpose technologies, each with their own terminology, syntax, and semantics. This creates a great deal of friction and complexity. Maybe this complexity is necessary for the most intensive software, but the long tail of small-scale software problems can be solved with much simpler tools. My goal is to collapse the stack into a unified substrate that is dramatically simpler albeit slower. My meta-goal is to organize other researchers into a field working on software substrates. (edited)
• Dennis Hansen I want to see software go from: Molded to computers → Molded to humans Arcane symbols → Intuitive physicality Mass-manufactured → Self-authored Hidden inner world → Fully inspectable Ossified → Malleable Siloed → Co-located Lonely → Shared