We're not talking about distance from the CPU. At least I'm not, and I'd be shocked if Dijkstra were. No, the issue is that a program has at least two different

We're not talking about distance from the CPU. At least I'm not, and I'd be shocked if Dijkstra were. No, the issue is that a program has at least two different logical structures: its lexical organization in text, and its dynamic organization in time. You want these two to be as closely related as possible, because humans rely mostly on the program text to understand it. "Time" here doesn't mean CPU time, it means logical time--the temporal (as distinct from textual) order of operations in the program. To put it another way, the "time" that matters for program clarity is not when stuff happens at lower levels (e.g. when does the OS evict my thread) but what happens when in the source code itself. This is not so far from your phrase, "how the steps in the process relate", so I don't see the disagreement. I certainly don't agree, though, that the OP's design recommendations lead to higher-level or easier-to-reason-about code. Do you really think they do?