Exactly... though it really underscored the idea that the tools we use (and the tools that go with those tools) can shape our worldview.
What would have happened if the author took those objections and turned them around, asking instead, what sort of language would need to exist to work ideally with a tool like light table? And, possibly, what sort of problems could more easily be solved if we adapted our language/development model to work with an environment like light table?
There may well be no amazing breakthrough here, just as the OP seems to argue, but it certainly seems as though it could (or should) function as an opportunity to rethink our tools and development methods a bit...
edit:
Also, to the claim that many of the features of light table have been implemented elsewhere already, I'd point out that rarely are good ideas purely new, but successful advances come from sticking many little bits of innovation together in a powerful way
What would have happened if the author took those objections and turned them around, asking instead, what sort of language would need to exist to work ideally with a tool like light table? And, possibly, what sort of problems could more easily be solved if we adapted our language/development model to work with an environment like light table?
There may well be no amazing breakthrough here, just as the OP seems to argue, but it certainly seems as though it could (or should) function as an opportunity to rethink our tools and development methods a bit...
edit: Also, to the claim that many of the features of light table have been implemented elsewhere already, I'd point out that rarely are good ideas purely new, but successful advances come from sticking many little bits of innovation together in a powerful way