Re: [dvd-discuss] The Touretsky and Shamos debate at CMU.

[daw(at)mozart.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner)]

Scott A Crosby  wrote:
[...]
>What Shamos claims is that it is wrong to distribute things with
>functional aspects. Shamos says that instead, one should just make sure to
>distribute it as something that DOESN"T have functional aspects.
[...]

In my declaration, I argue that oftentimes, code is a useful form of
communication precisely because it is functional: it is useful because
it is precise & unambiguous, and it is precise & unambiguous because of
its functional nature.  (Computer tolerate no ambiguity, so writing in
code is an effective way to avoid ambiguity.)