In Learnable Programming, you mention “Long and careful thought was given to the process by which a learner discovers the need for subprocedures, and then factors a large procedure into subprocedures.” Is there a place where I can read through this thinking other than the Papert books I’ve already read?
How do square your admiration for functional programming with your desire to “kill math”, given that FP looks a lot like the math you want to kill? (My guess is that he likes the abstractions of FP, but not the notation, and conversely he likes dislikes the notions of mathmatics, not the abstractions.)
You often reference, directly or indirectly, how many of the principles of functional programming could improve programming generally. Yet few, if any, of your talks, papers, or demos, seem to embody those principles. Why is this?