Ah, a very good catch! I'm afraid of answering this question right now, because I only have had a glimpse of it and it really requires more time (and maybe even people) using weave. My gut feeling is that ad-hoc behaviors should be singular things we do that we haven't found a way to contextualize widely yet. A future weave shouldn't be used directly (just like, say, lambda calculus and Turing machines shouldn't), so it might pan out to be a language of structured contexts in which you can easily add an ad-hoc behavior with on-the-fly context creation from an ad-hoc piece. But this is... somewhat science-fiction, for now, sadly.
Rare to come across Substack posts that dig into abstraction and execution this thoughtfully. Appreciate the clarity of your thinking. Looking forward to more.
Thank you, but at the source, not much is clear. I'm writing things here that might turn out to be wrong, but I think the process is exquisitely important! Being wrong is becoming right, I guess. For example, two posts ago I thought the whole bidirectional thing is a closed case and then... it turned out there a lot more to consider and probably more yet. I'm glad to have people looking at this, at least, so thank you, I appreciate it!
How do we determine whether a behavior should be lifted to a context versus left ad-hoc?
Ah, a very good catch! I'm afraid of answering this question right now, because I only have had a glimpse of it and it really requires more time (and maybe even people) using weave. My gut feeling is that ad-hoc behaviors should be singular things we do that we haven't found a way to contextualize widely yet. A future weave shouldn't be used directly (just like, say, lambda calculus and Turing machines shouldn't), so it might pan out to be a language of structured contexts in which you can easily add an ad-hoc behavior with on-the-fly context creation from an ad-hoc piece. But this is... somewhat science-fiction, for now, sadly.
Rare to come across Substack posts that dig into abstraction and execution this thoughtfully. Appreciate the clarity of your thinking. Looking forward to more.
Thank you, but at the source, not much is clear. I'm writing things here that might turn out to be wrong, but I think the process is exquisitely important! Being wrong is becoming right, I guess. For example, two posts ago I thought the whole bidirectional thing is a closed case and then... it turned out there a lot more to consider and probably more yet. I'm glad to have people looking at this, at least, so thank you, I appreciate it!