Rather than seeing "late binding of everything" as a specific implementation or bits and pieces of a particular implementation, I find it is much more clear to

Rather than seeing "late binding of everything" as a specific implementation or bits and pieces of a particular implementation, I find it is much more clear to see it as a general self-referential idea. Why then would one _go against it and try to constrain it_ ? Taken in that light, as the article does a really good job of explaining, late binding of everything is a modeling process (or a process of thinking about things). It means that I should try and keep parts of the structure that I'm building up as flexible as they can be so that they match the model in my mind. One benefit of doing that is that I can later revisit and rework them. Another benefit that is seldom talked about, is that _the object I'm working on no longer constrains my thinking_. In other words, only specify in detail that which is crystal-clear in my mind model, and get away with fuzzier representations elsewhere. Tools and languages that fall inline with that process, not only empower one to work in this way but make it _ultra-efficient_ by triggering short feedback-loops and allowing the programmer to mesh with the modeled object.