I could be wrong... But as I understand what mister Lamport is saying... This is just digital design... Combinational... Sequential circuits... I could also be wrong but... Clocks are more of combinational circuits... On the other hand, sequential circuits have clock circuits in them... 🤷
If anything, you're strengthening his point; it's not a programming language, it's supposed to be more flexible, and math notation isn't popular in the young field of computer science, because of the cultism of using a programming language for everything, even thinking. His advice has nothing to do with the programming language you use, as he said, nothing of this is about how to code (something he claims you should do after solving the problem). His language is a specification language. And it's used in Amazon, and by NASA. Also, he won a Turing award. So definitely not amateur, as it's clearly had success at what it actually is. You didn't even realise it's not about a new programming language, or the very act of coding. Sounds like you only watched a subsection or some snippets of this. HE SAYS IT IN THE FIRST MINUTE!
> amateur attempts at programming language design as cute as this guy is pretentious His pretentiousness created a field called distributed systems with seminal contributions like Paxos algorithm and lamport clocks.
Cargo cultism is believing OOP will apply to every problem, no matter how obtuse or inexperienced the coder is, or how many extra thousand lines of code it takes to express a trivial problem. Actual math solves actual computer science problems if you are not allergic to algebra.
