Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Personal tools

You are here: Home / Evolvix Thinkers

Evolvix Thinkers

Evolvix Thinkers have been shaping Evolvix by how they think.


Distributed Thought in Diverse Dimensions

Evolvix would be inconceivable without the thoughts shared by many Evolvix Thinkers. Whether informal feedback, or testing promising approaches, whether by code they wrote or syntax designs they reviewed. Their main contribution has been to permanently reduce the enormous size of the puzzle posed by designing an architecture for supporting Evolvix as a stable extensible user-friendly language over the long-term. They did this by sharing their thoughts from initial impressions to expert theorems, from fleeting thoughts about ambiguity sensed to instructions on how to use substantial prototypes they wrote.


It took a great many different contributions form very diverse Evolvix Thinkers to test how much potential there was in a participatory approach to programming language design, and how that might work over time. This methodology, nicknamed 'DesignFlip' in the context of Evolvix, has been tested now for several years. It was first described in a 2017 issue on big data in health published by the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (see its Evolvix page here). There is of course much more, including innumerable discussions of modeling in biology from many different angles. Please get in touch if have the time to draft a brief description of your contributions. Likewise, if you would like to become a contributing Evolvix Thinker, please pick areas of usability review or expert review to which you would like to contribute, and specify when and how you can be contacted for discussing aspects of Evolvix design that relate to what might matter to you as a user.


Work impacted by Evolvix Thinkers 

For different overviews, see the list of Evolvix Concepts, the website of the Loewe Lab at UW-Madison, and the Google Scholar scientific publications of Laurence Loewe, who is the Core Language Architect of Evolvix.


Evolvix Thinkers who contributed early on

The following Evolvix Thinkers are among those who contributed so far and have impacted the development of Evolvix in a great many profound ways, far beyond what can be described here at the moment. It is difficult to write a full list of all those who contributed. This one is a start that will continue to grow. In due time, their list will be made as complete as possible by telling the stories of their contributions as appropriately as possible. If you have been contributing to Evolvix and have an idea about how to present your contribution, please get in touch.

For now, here is the summary: Thank you for the great work you did and for sharing your thoughts!

  • Kate Scheuer
  • Seth Keel
  • Ben Liblit
  • Ines Dutra
  • Vaibhav Vyas
  • Dinesh Thangavel
  • Iratxo Flores-Lorca
  • Tanner Engbretson
  • Kurt Ehlert
  • Anthony Pietsch
  • Christine Javid
  • Cecilia Moog
  • Jocelyn Meyer
  • Ginger Ann
  • Megan Mills
  • Jerdon Dresel
  • Lea Rogers
  • Mentewab Ayalew
  • and many others that will be listed as soon as this page grows into what it ought to be in order to appropriately acknowledge the varied contributions of all Evolvix Thinkers who left a dent in its design or development. Please get in touch if have the time to draft a brief description of your contributions.

An integral goal of the Evolvix design and development process is to ensure that it can still be recognized as reasonably coherent by a single human brain after becoming really useful over the long term. To this end, all long-term architectural design decisions, anything that can impact long-term backwards compatibility, as well as changes affecting long-term usability and computational correctness currently require review by Laurence Loewe, the Core Language Architect of Evolvix. The most important task of the Core Language Architect is to guard Evolvix against avoidable complexity. This requires giving those a voice at the design-table, who have somehow been led to believe that they can't contribute, whereas in reality they have important insights to share. All it takes is a bit of abstracting. What this means in practice is spelled out in more detail by the Flipped Programming Language Design approach.