The interesting part of the exchange is the contrast between the surface level syntax of the exchange and the semantics below. It reminds me of teaching in a lot of ways. The level of polish on the immediately apparent surface level of the conversation is very high: reasonable tenents, good justification and ability to explain them.

But then applying them directly into an example falls down a bit. The language is a bit of a mismash and parts of it might not work semantically. The use of actors looks a bit out of place, and raises a lot of questions about how the memory management and scheduling is working under the hood. Despite the bold aims in the tenents thre is nothing in the language exposed so far that addresses them: why would the language produce more modular code in the large? what features of the syntax would increase the level of abstraction in code written? etc etc

Overall this would warrant a (barely) passing grade by modern standards, i.e. it can regurgitate the material succesfully but without demonstrating any deep understanding. I find the result quite interesting as it demonstrates how much of what we judge to be quality is actually fitting a particular pattern of response (w.r.t a specific field of study) rather than exploring the material more deeply.

I like the use of the arrows in the function definitions though :) I've seen that somewhere before and will be "appropriating" it for the project that I'm currently working on.