That said, no logic language (or system) currently exists that can act as a substitute for traditional paradigms. So I'm stuck trying to invent my own semantics, based on some of the most primal existing work (e.g. Datalog), but hugely-extended such that it can hopefully become general-purpose.

Why do you feel that is? What do other paradigms have that logic does not?

I don’t think it’s “logic” in general that’s missing something, it’s just specific logic languages. For example, Datalog doesn’t include a model of interactivity/time (but Dedalus does), nor does it include number types, or spawnable “objects” with opaque identifiers (which I think are going to be necessary in any non-trivial program). Datalog doesn’t have aggregation either but other logic languages do (I’m digging into aggregation right now). Prolog’s aggregation UX is awful as well.

In another thread, I was just saying something about modeling SVG in a logic language. Had a bit like this:

fill(S, red) :- bold-red(S).
stroke(S, black) :- bold-red(S).
stroke-width(S, 3) :- bold-red(S).

Then I stopped short of a neat sort of puzzle. With a similar definition

cool-blue

(specifying a fill and a stroke, make it a dashed one):

fill(S, blue) :- cool-blue(S).
stroke(S, cornflowerblue) :- cool-blue(

... Slack, you just lost my edit!