> the text is just a tool to manipulate some abstract model of the program.
yup.
> When you think about it this way, it becomes clear that using a textual source code is really inefficient way to manipulate this model.
Hard nope. All the attempts at different approach were a failure so far. Text so far is the best thing we have because text can be analyzed formally and computed with by computers. This is the result of the work that's being going for at least like 200 years in philosophy, logic, and math.
What we really need is to bridge the gap between programming and math as industry standard, not academical exersise somehow. But I highly doubt eliminating text as source code is it.
> The historic reality is that HTML served as a "backdoor"/gateway to let the linux community compete with microsoft: linux devs could ship their code for windows clients.
Problem is you need to remember the patterns first to be able to think "hey I know this pattern. Maybe if I look up what the identity is it will be usefull"
The claim is only missing a qualification that the impossibility exists within the framework of ieee 754. It can be easily inferred from context and it is important to note because thats what the major CPU architectures use to store native floating point numbers. Therefore, the point is, we need a non-native (wrt the cpu) way to store and calculate with irrationals and some rationals if mathematical precision is required.
> If something is being described that is hard to do, then the sentence is structured in such a way that it is comparatively hard to understand, by using an unusual word order etc. If things are far apart, the words are themselves far apart etc. For quick things, words are omitted that cannot be omitted in other languages etc.
> As a math student, I would much prefer to be given a basic statement of the definition of a monad, a list of properties, and maybe a theorem to prove that some structure is a monad instead of having to fall back to the definition.
I dont think anybody argues that types replace documentation. However, documentation without types tends to get repetitive and requires you to come up with ways to structure it properly. Turns out, you can encode a lot of information into a type and now it can be automatically verified and frees you to write documentation for things that can not be expressed in types.
Your first mistake is dropping those scripts everywhere. Name them sanely and drop them somwhere in PATH. Add your own path to PATH just for these scripts if you don't have it already.
Your second mistake may be that you are writing python instead of a nice shell (eg. zsh is pretty good, way more powerful than bash) and ofloading to python only those parts that aint suitable for shell.
Now since you'd be offloading only sh-unsuitable parts as other programs, you can as well write them in whatever is best fit. Be it python, rust, c, haskell or whatever.