I'm trying to express a couple of thought which might be a bit "out-there", and would really appreciate feedback - is a "clarification loop" self-explanatory, or "out there"? What about the rest of the intuitions about programming?

PS - please leave comments (instead of upvoting, even). This stuff is unpolished - feedback from people I've never talked to about this is much more valuable than visibility at this point.

I liked it, and things were pretty straight forward, though i think that the bits that are not story or quote don't really seem to add all that much to the point you are making.

Also, minor points, "(user experience is the job --- people writing IDE’s and text editors) needs an "of" or an "of the" (unless of course you were writing about people with jobs writing them...)

and "even if there was no chance you could possibly want to do it." seemed a little awkward when i was reading through.

I'll try to write something specific about the actual programming content itself later, when i am not so tired.

Thanks - my point is that delegating the responsibility of user interaction to the people who develop IDE's and text editors is a mistake. I should make that explicit to avoid any confusion.

I'd be interested to hear about the programming specific also. I'm still solidifying those ideas in an essay separately from the conversation-story, but I'm curious about the feasibility of a clarification-loop, or in general, a system where "code" is ambiguous, with the "compiler" making educated guesses and drawing attention to places of high uncertainty.