That's very silly. I like it. :-D

Reminds of Rockstar[1] and The Art of Code[2], a great talk by its creator.

1: https://codewithrockstar.com

2: https://youtu.be/6avJHaC3C2U

> summon the result with essence of through ritual amplify with power

This is not natural language.

Love it.

This is the true value of AI.

More such creative projects please.

Bewitch that repo with a clone incantation!

You've got the basis of an entire alternative programming culture - locate a strong and understanding marketing partner, and you've got something potentially as big as Pokemon.

very silly indeed … to max out the silliness, you could implement this as a Raku grammar

I was expecting to see Haskell.

Add this to an open ended Morrowind sequel- with a tint of Minecraft and LLM driven narrative - and you would have caught the 18yo me in an infinite loop. Danger stuff, pure alchemy in fact…

And now imagine the future where code is embedded in the world all around. No one knows it’s there, except… the magicians! They’re the only ones who managed to RTFM before it was lost in the mists of time…

I feel invited by the light-hearted nature of this project (and the beauty of this particular Sunday) to make a light-hearted observation of my own. The idea of a programming language that reads like a spell book...but what about a programming language that reads like Principia Mathematica[0]? How would that work, and would it make sense?

Flipping through it just now I was struck with several observations. First, it has a very formal structure (Proposition N Theorem M Phenomena P etc). And also the sheer amount of work he did in (Euclidian) geometry prior to even discussing gravity or calculus. But most remarkably of all, how little a computer would have helped Newton in his work. Oh sure, a computer would have helped Kepler a great deal! And even Newton is not without his tables. Newton would have really enjoyed Mathematica, but even it would have been useless since it assumes what Newton sought to prove.

In any event, this all leads me to realize what a narrow place traditional computation has within the entire field of human communication. The optimist in me sees this as affirming the unique power of the human mind; the pessimist notes that there are always more ways to get a problem wrong than to get it right.

P.S. The Principia is as often a philosophical work as a scientific one. Consider this excerpt:

RULE I. We are i’o admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

RULE II. Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.

As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America ; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.

RULE III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.

These Rules of Newton have become so far subsumed into the zeitgeist that we hardly ever repeat them. (It reminds me of the feeling I got reading Descartes math papers). Indeed, most modern physicists scoff at philosophy for just this reason, because to them it's been "solved" and remains only as a jobs program for verbally talented charlatans. This is deeply unfortunate for at least two reasons: first, it is dangerous to assume the basics will always be in place; civilizational drift is quite real. Second, you give up using those same tools to advance human knowledge further - if Newton was able to use philosophy to clarify his point and purpose, surely another scientist might as well.

0 - https://archive.org/details/IsaacNewtonPrincipiaEnglish1846/...