The language feels like a solution in search of a problem, and the mostly-generated README reduces my confidence in the quality of the project before I've even learned that much about it.

One example:

    Best of all, they work together. You can store your .glp blueprints in a Docker container—creating software that is immortal in both environment and logic.

This is nonsensical. The entire point of a container is it ought to contain only what's necessary to run the underlying software. It's just the production filesystem. Why would I put LLM prompts that don't get used at runtime in a container?

What other language-agnostic methods of describing complex systems is your project inspired by? In competition with?

---

By using this tool, a programmer or team is sending the message that:

"We expect LLM generated code to remain a deeply coupled part of our delivery process, indefinitely"

But we didn't know about LLMs 5 years ago. What is the argument for defining your software in a way that depends on such a young technology? Most of the "safety" features here are related to how unsafe the tech itself still is.

"Nontrivial LLM driven rewrites of the code are expected, even encouraged"

Why is the speedy rewriting of a system in a new language such a popular flex these days? Is it because it looks impressive, and LLMs make it easy? It's so silly.

And if the language allows for limiting the code the LLM is allowed to modify, how is it going to help us keep our overall project language-agnostic?