Things that are radical are by definition not evolutionary from the state of where things are at.

Today “where things are at” is that big companies are pouring immense resources into ecosystems and editors and profilers and tools and programmers and skills and all that kind of stuff. The mainstream is, by definition, deeply practical. Meanwhile this radical and elegant stuff of functional programming has much less of that deep, infrastructural support. But at the same time that doesn't necessarily make it self-indulgent to pursue it. Because, after all, unless some people are working on radical and elegant things you're going to end up in a local optimum, incrementally optimizing the mainstream but stuck on a low hill.

-- Simon Peyton Jones (Coders at Work - oreilly.com/library/vie…)

I feel the same way about literate programming as Simon does about functional programming. It has the potential to radically change how programming is done, especially when paired with AI. But the industry is optimized locally in a different domain.

I like to spend time over on literate programming hill, even if the tooling isn't all there yet.