Let’s chew on that question and follow the chalk-lines it draws to see what we uncover.
Let's kick off with two fundamental styles of programming: Declarative and Imperative.
| Expression Style |
|---|
| Declarative |
| Imperative |
When you ask for examples, it shakes out like this:
| Expression Style | Language Type | Typical Medium (there’s always a spectrum) |
|---|---|---|
| Declarative | DSLs, programming languages | SQL, Prolog, Terraform |
| Imperative | Machine code, programming languages | Machine code, Assembly, C |
The two styles map nicely onto What and How.
| Layer | Expression Style | Language Type | Typical Medium (there’s always a spectrum) |
|---|---|---|---|
| What | Declarative | DSLs, programming languages | SQL, Prolog, Terraform |
| How | Imperative | Machine code, programming languages | Machine code, Assembly, C |
In practice, the What layer often sprinkles in a dash of How. Here’s that nuance:
| Layer | Writable Scope | Expression Style | Language Type | Typical Medium (there’s always a spectrum) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| What | What, How | Declarative | DSLs, programming languages | SQL, Prolog, Terraform |
| How | How | Imperative | Machine code, programming languages | Machine code, Assembly, C |
If there’s a What and a How, surely a Why sits on top, no?
| Layer | Writable Scope | Expression Style | Language Type | Typical Medium (there’s always a spectrum) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Why | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| What | What, How | Declarative | DSLs, programming languages | SQL, Prolog, Terraform |
| How | How | Imperative | Machine code, programming languages | Machine code, Assembly, C |
Zoom out one more notch and you can label what each layer actually describes:
| Layer | Describes | Writable Scope | Expression Style | Language Type | Typical Medium (there’s always a spectrum) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Why | Outcome | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| What | Output | What, How | Declarative | DSLs, programming languages | SQL, Prolog, Terraform |
| How | Procedure | How | Imperative | Machine code, programming languages | Machine code, Assembly, C |
Now, in modern software development we do have a tool for writing Outcomes—just hand them to an AI. Tell the model you want to boost your store’s conversion rate and it happily decomposes that wish into Change the CTA color, Resize the button, and so on. The “Expression Style” for this tier? Optative feels about right.
| Layer | Describes | Writable Scope | Expression Style | Language Type | Typical Medium (there’s always a spectrum) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Why | Outcome | Why, What, How | Optative | Natural language | Prompts |
| What | Output | What, How | Declarative | DSLs, programming languages | SQL, Prolog, Terraform |
| How | Procedure | How | Imperative | Machine code, programming languages | Machine code, Assembly, C |
Notice the pattern: the What layer punts the How to a runtime, and the Why layer punts the What to an agent.
| Layer | Delegates Downward | Describes | Writable Scope | Expression Style | Language Type | Typical Medium (there’s always a spectrum) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Why | Leaves the What to the agent | Outcome | Why, What, How | Optative | Natural language | Prompts |
| What | Leaves the How to the runtime | Output | What, How | Declarative | DSLs, programming languages | SQL, Prolog, Terraform |
| How | Leaves execution to hardware | Procedure | How | Imperative | Machine code, programming languages | Machine code, Assembly, C |
Push the thought experiment further and another layer emerges—one that generates the Why itself.
| Layer | Delegates Downward | Describes | Writable Scope | Expression Style | Language Type | Typical Medium (there’s always a spectrum) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ? | Leaves the Why to ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| Why | Leaves the What to the agent | Outcome | Why, What, How | Optative | Natural language | Prompts |
| What | Leaves the How to the runtime | Output | What, How | Declarative | DSLs, programming languages | SQL, Prolog, Terraform |
| How | Leaves execution to hardware | Procedure | How | Imperative | Machine code, programming languages | Machine code, Assembly, C |
Ultimately, Why/Outcome boils down to “intent” or “will.” What does it look like when that’s generated automatically? Climbing from How up to What and Why, we shift from machine-centric to human-centric communication. One layer higher and even explicit communication fades: your clickstream, biometrics—perhaps every scrap of lifelong data—feeds a super-agent that predicts, proposes, and acts on what you should want next. The input isn't something you write; it's just you.
| Layer | Delegates Downward | Describes | Writable Scope | Expression Style | Language Type | Typical Medium (there’s always a spectrum) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Being | Leaves the Why to the super-agent | Unwritten | Unwritten | Unwritten (vast contextual data, incl. activity logs, are the input) | Non-verbal | Your / the business’s very existence |
| Why | Leaves the What to the agent | Outcome | Why, What, How | Optative | Natural language | Prompts |
| What | Leaves the How to the runtime | Output | What, How | Declarative | DSLs, programming languages | SQL, Prolog, Terraform |
| How | Leaves execution to hardware | Procedure | How | Imperative | Machine code, programming languages | Machine code, Assembly, C |
We started with the tango between Declarative and Imperative, climbed the recursive staircase to discover Optative Programming, and finally glimpsed a Being layer. Thanks for reading along.
- I’d love to hear your thoughts!
- If there are any technologies you’re keeping an eye on in the realms of Optative Programming or the Being layer, let me know—imaginative ideas are also welcome!
Top comments (0)