Here's what Victor wrote about inets in Bend2 (on X):

> interaction combinators still parallelize better than anything else, but the graph overhead prevents us from compiling to maximally efficient assembly. bend2 is basically inets without the overhead. in a way, inets live in it architecturally, but they don't exist at runtime

From what I understand, the main difference between lambda calculus and inets is that in LC you can refer to a binding multiple times for free, i.e. call same closure multiple times, etc. In inets, you can't - they are more like physical wires where each reference costs. You can definitely see inets in Bend design here (from the guide):

> A closure is affine: it can be called at most once, even when everything it captures is Data. Only top-level definitions can be called freely.

So programming in it might be very different from the normal functional programming. Seems like a big limitations. But I guess that's what lets it run without GC, on GPUs, etc.

aww man. I remember following victor in college. I mean pivots gotta pivot, and this is probably a better one for business, but always thought the interaction combinator framework was cool

What?

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm only reading these comments because i liked the interaction combinator Bend language.

Pivots are cool but why reuse the name and cause confusion? What is the old Bend called now?