The thing is, I might be able to see this "working" in very simple and limited processes[0]... But going back to your example of the nasty bug in complex software, I believe the post's idea is that you shouldn't fix the bug in the layer it's happening, but, instead, write a new b-thread that corrects that behavior.
Which might sound nice in theory but I feel it's much more likely that you won't be able to fix it there (the info you need might be lost in a previous b-thread) or become a piece of code so complex that negates any supposedly benefit that this system had in the first place.
[0] It might be just me and completely off-topic, but this reminds me a bit of rule-based expert systems, where the rules get activated by certain conditions and produce effects (that can activate other rules). The idea was always that you could model very complex (and emerging) behaviors based on very simple, human readable rules. The thing is that you could definitely add/tweak/remove the rules as needed.
The thing is, I might be able to see this "working" in very simple and limited processes[0]... But going back to your example of the nasty bug in complex software, I believe the post's idea is that you shouldn't fix the bug in the layer it's happening, but, instead, write a new b-thread that corrects that behavior.
Which might sound nice in theory but I feel it's much more likely that you won't be able to fix it there (the info you need might be lost in a previous b-thread) or become a piece of code so complex that negates any supposedly benefit that this system had in the first place.
[0] It might be just me and completely off-topic, but this reminds me a bit of rule-based expert systems, where the rules get activated by certain conditions and produce effects (that can activate other rules). The idea was always that you could model very complex (and emerging) behaviors based on very simple, human readable rules. The thing is that you could definitely add/tweak/remove the rules as needed.