A user : with PAW I had the impression to do physics, with ROOT I have the impression to type C++. Then why not returning to do physics?! We will present how gopaw is done, especially putting accent on its portability, its way to handle multiple file formats (including ROOT/IO and HDF5), its unified graphics based on the inlib/sg scene graph manager (see CHEP 2013 for softinex) and its openness permitting also to support multiple scripting language (then at least KUIP but also Lua and Python). We want also to address the more deep issues of knowing if we have the right language(s) to manipulate HEP data, and also the problem of the relationship users/doers (physicists/engineers) around software in HEP. In the 1990s, when doers pushed to leave FORTRAN for C++ in order to have better IO, better plotting, better graphics, was it unavoidable to push users to leave KUIP? a command system that, put all together, was perhaps more close to the physics than a C++ interpreter prompt exposing too much technicalities not related to the essential for a user. In the 1990s, was it not possible to just keep the facade of CERN/PAW for users, and then "behind the scene" have the doers smoothly migrating everything toward new technologies? Right now more and more (scripting) languages are around: Python, Lua, Julia, etc... but all theses are generic languages that do not know straight HEP data. To do analysis in a more intuitive (and reliable) way, the author have the strong feeling that a piece is still lacking in our computing environment, some kind of language strongly HEP-data oriented having keywords as "run", "event", "cut", "histo", "ntuple", "fit", "plot" beside generic keywords as "for", "if", "class". We would like also to take the occasion of this CHEP, and this presentation, to share thoughts (and moods) about all these points.