I will not comment on the judgement passed upon the education system. The second article exhibits eristic tricks, obfuscatory language, and a plain confusion of ideas, especially when speaking about proof-carrying code and type theory.
It's interesting to see the author wishing for a Python of functional programming, and yet Hoon's syntax appears deliberately obscure.
However, there is one paragraph with which I wholeheartedly agree:
> I think the world could use a charity that funds creative programming. The software systems that people use today — don't even start me on "Web 2.0" — are awful and ancient, and hardly anyone has any reasonable plan to improve them. Free-software programmers are not at all bad at supporting themselves, but nothing like Xerox PARC exists today, and it should.
>We should note that in Nock and Hoon, 0 (pronounced “yes”) is true, and 1 (“no”) is false. Why? It’s fresh, it’s different, it’s new. And it’s annoying. And it keeps you on your toes. And it’s also just intuitively right.