I feel like the inevitable conclusion to a lot of philosophies is the tendency to be misinterpreted, usually pigeonholed and then often the creator feels the ne

I feel like the inevitable conclusion to a lot of philosophies is the tendency to be misinterpreted, usually pigeonholed and then often the creator feels the need to clarify "please be more open minded about thing X". Agile is like endlessly flopped this way. The contrarian in me sometimes likes to consider, no, let's stay literal, don't be open-minded, we mean Infrastructure as Computer Code. Partially, because I think there's benefit to atomizing a bit. Here's this thing over here that's IaC, and instead of essentially saying, anything can be IaC, let's call other things something else. It's hard to compare and contrast two different ideas (literal code vs principles) if you start from the place of "Everything can be IaC" In some ways I think I see Mitchell's clarification as a distinction without a difference. I have some issues with IaC, and I think I would have the same (or similar) issues with "Infrastructure as a system of principles or rules"