4 ms·

People who write code for robot compilers (aka programmers) often make this mistake. People who write code for human compilers (aka writers) embrace the subjec

People who write code for robot compilers (aka programmers) often make this mistake. People who write code for human compilers (aka writers) embrace the subjectivity/variability of those human compilers

toyg 7y ago
You forget one subcategory of writers: lawyers (and their subcategory legislators). They definitely reject variability of interpretation as much as they can, or at least try their hardest to.
- GavinMcG 7y ago
  I think lawyers fundamentally premise their work on the variability of interpretation. They make arguments in favor of certain interpretations, and take pains in the texts they write to preempt any undesirable interpretations. Legislators may or may not think like writers/lawyers, but even if they do they're constrained by those who don't, the need for compromise, and the incentive to have gotten something done even if it's not perfect. So they sometimes end up doing a bad job of legal writing.
- hamburglar 7y ago
  In my experience, this is how programmers think lawyers work, and it's why so many programmers frustrate actual lawyers by thinking they can use pure robotic logic to decide on the legality of something (or to find clever loopholes that no human judge would ever actually allow).
- mrleiter 7y ago
  As a law student myself I have to disgree. While in many cases legislators want no variability of interpretetion, in some few cases variability is intended (for bad reasons, mostly). Lawyers actually like variability of interpretation, since it allows for flexible arguments. This is especially true for common law countries, where law is systematically interpreted by the courts, very often following arguments of lawyers and/or scholars. You see, language is a social construct and can never be as accurate as mathematics. You can define an interger very rigourously, but you cannot define language that way. Yes, there is grammar and such things. But it‘s very dynamic. And I didn‘t even start with „meaning“. There‘s a very large debate in philosophy about what that even is.

toyg 7y ago

You forget one subcategory of writers: lawyers (and their subcategory legislators). They definitely reject variability of interpretation as much as they can, or at least try their hardest to.

GavinMcG 7y ago
I think lawyers fundamentally premise their work on the variability of interpretation. They make arguments in favor of certain interpretations, and take pains in the texts they write to preempt any undesirable interpretations. Legislators may or may not think like writers/lawyers, but even if they do they're constrained by those who don't, the need for compromise, and the incentive to have gotten something done even if it's not perfect. So they sometimes end up doing a bad job of legal writing.
hamburglar 7y ago
In my experience, this is how programmers think lawyers work, and it's why so many programmers frustrate actual lawyers by thinking they can use pure robotic logic to decide on the legality of something (or to find clever loopholes that no human judge would ever actually allow).
mrleiter 7y ago
As a law student myself I have to disgree. While in many cases legislators want no variability of interpretetion, in some few cases variability is intended (for bad reasons, mostly). Lawyers actually like variability of interpretation, since it allows for flexible arguments. This is especially true for common law countries, where law is systematically interpreted by the courts, very often following arguments of lawyers and/or scholars. You see, language is a social construct and can never be as accurate as mathematics. You can define an interger very rigourously, but you cannot define language that way. Yes, there is grammar and such things. But it‘s very dynamic. And I didn‘t even start with „meaning“. There‘s a very large debate in philosophy about what that even is.