>A computer cannot execute declaring code - by definition - because it is missing the implementation. If you allow null pointer references to a declared variab

>A computer cannot execute declaring code - by definition - because it is missing the implementation. If you allow null pointer references to a declared variable, then it certainly can. >Declaring code does not "indirectly perform computer functions". Declaring code does not perform anything. It provides a reference, nothing more, for a compiler to match one computer program (the API client) to another (the API implementation). I strongly disagree. We understand the obvious difference between declaration and instantiation, as declaration brings a variable into existence while instantiation specifies the variable's value. Declaring a variable is ultimately based upon available language primitives. Whether or not he realized it, Thomas draws out a deep philosophical element of computing. Consider the creation of a self-hosting compiler. Once created, this compiler has an identity. However, creating this compiler required the usage of other software tools, each of which have distinct identities. Once the compiler operates, its creating tools become unnecessary to it, as the compiler operates independently (though the broader system may not). His phrase "triggering prewritten implementing code" has full-stack implications, whereas the majority opinion considers scope. To connect to hierarchical processing model of programming, the majority opinion says a top-level processing block is special, whereas Thomas says no processing block differs from one another. From a business perspective, I agree with the majority. From a philosophical perspective, I agree with Thomas.