Are these guys ever going to actually finish the IDE, or postulate on what it means to program, ad infinitum. I'm glad they're being considerate in their design, but this whole project is starting to reek of over-aggrandized vaporware.
There will be another Light Table release in the next few weeks, featuring CodeMirror 4 (better performance, multiple cursors).
We've only been working on Aurora since February. Designing a new language takes time. We may show some early demos in the next few months, depending on how the current prototype works out.
I think that some people (including me) are a bit disappointed that some(most?) of your effort goes to Aurora instead of LightTable. Don't get me wrong, Aurora sounds cool but for professional programmers LightTable is much more appealing.
I can sympathise with that. The reason for our decision is that there is a low ceiling on how much we can improve matters with Light Table. The problems we are trying to solve turn out to be pretty baked in to existing languages and toolchains and we can't hack around them in the editor. Aurora is a riskier project but it has much more potential to help people.
Also, the fact that Aurora is intended to be simple and easy does not mean that we are building a toy. Quite the opposite - the intention is to remove some of the incidental complexity in programming to leave you free to focus on the actual problems. We intend to bootstrap the compiler and editor by way of dogfooding. I look forward to doing most of my programming in Aurora in the future.
When Chris and company announced the light table project, they had very high goals. I knew then that this would take a long time, and some of the goals would even be unachievable without programming model changes.
The advantage of being incremental is that you can reliably produce something in a reasonable amount of time. This is not incremental, and it's quite risky; be patient.
