I’ve reached the bit about Aristotelian metaphysics (why??) and I still can’t tell what is the author’s point. EDIT: Alright, I’ve skimmed to the end and it se

I’ve reached the bit about Aristotelian metaphysics (why??) and I still can’t tell what is the author’s point. EDIT: Alright, I’ve skimmed to the end and it seems to me it is a very r/iamverysmart way of saying “I prefer to use RefCell”. Honestly, I have trouble trusting someone’s judgement in programming language semantics when they can’t seem to be a good judge of their own written language semantics. Why define an agent at the beginning, but leave “agency” undefined? What does even “capability to act in a certain environment” mean? Is a function/method something with “capability to act in a certain environment”? Is a C++ class that?? Also: > It is also a category error to treat them as “real objects” since “real objects” and “programming objects” have little connection with each other ontologically. Mate, you link to the Wikipedia article about categorical errors, where it says that a CE is defined as comparing things that are ontologically different, thus showing your whole sentence as a tautology. What’s the value added for the reader??