a basic difficulty [of non-functional languages] is that they are very long winded, in terms of the amount one has to write to achieve a given effect.

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Pure functional languages cannot be the whole story for parallel programming because they fail to provide needed expressivity.claim0.794
  Argument that recursion equations are inappropriate for many important parallel programs.
• It is impossible for us to accept the claim that functional languages are necessarily higher-level than C-Linda.claim0.783
  Critique of the functional-level argument based on mental models.
• A programming language is low level when its programs require attention to the irrelevant.concept0.779
  Epigraph by Alan Perlis motivating the search for abstract conceptual models in Fruit's design philosophy.
• It has long been said that programming languages need more of the features of natural language, but it has not been clear what the desirable features are.claim0.776
  Introduction, motivating the proposal.
• In some sense, this is the simplest language model we profoundly don't understand. And so it makes a natural target for our paper.quote0.774
  Articulates why a one-layer transformer with MLP is the appropriate starting target for mechanistic interpretability
• Languages that cannot be automatically evaluated inevitably contain unresolvable paradoxes; constructive computation avoids this by building representations over simple step-by-step operations.claim0.769
  Paper's interpretation of Gödel's incompleteness result as motivating computationalism
• The surface syntax of natural language don't offer much.claim0.763
  Claim about the limited utility of natural language surface features.
• Explicitly parallel programs are not inherently harder to design or understand than functional specifications.claim0.761
  C-Linda DNA comparison is comparable in length and clarity to Crystal; pragmatic runtime granularity control outweighs compiler optimization ideals.