Why do you feel the need to say things in such a snarky way as this, as if I'm ignorant?
That was the point - that computation can also be represented in a 'data' structure like this. I already gave that exact example - a compiler representing computation as data.
My confusion was not on what they were doing or why they chose to use a DAG, but why they're presenting it this way and why they weren't using a DAG to begin with.
Like I've written task runners in various forms before. They've always been based on DAGs and topological sorting from the beginning. I wouldn't advertise it as such because the choice of model is obvious to me, I'd be more interested in reading about alternatives that provide other benefits.
I agree that your example illustrates the "computation is data" concept; I was just reconciling that with the apparent contradiction ("computation rather than data") earlier in your post.
I wasn't trying to call "gotcha" on you or anything; sometimes I say things that are unclear and I appreciate it when others help me clarify.
The lisp people would like a word...
In seriousness, computation is data, and this is perhaps especially obvious in a CI context where your “computation” is increasingly bash scripts in some string field inside of a YAML file.