For technologists, Alexander himself represents 'architecture': he is often the only architect they can name.

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• As an architect, Alexander has become convinced that the I is certainly real in buildings and must necessarily play a fundamental role in architecture.claim0.856
  Alexander's personal scientific and professional conclusion stated in the Mid-Book Appendix.
• Technologists love Alexander and architects hate him.claim0.853
  Central assertion about the divergent receptions of Alexander's work; Steenson has been asking this for over a decade.
• Architects should understand Alexander's influence, programmers should critique it, and all should be suspicious of the monolithic white male architect trope.claim0.827
  Steenson's normative stance on how different groups should engage with Alexander.
• Why do technologists love Alexander and architects hate him?question0.822
  Central organizing question Steenson has posed for over a decade; reveals fundamental disagreement about meaning of 'architecture' itself.
• Alexander claims there is a necessary connection between God and architecture that is, in part, empirically verifiable.claim0.821
  Summary of Alexander's position in the 2016 article 'Making the Garden'.
• I defend Alexander against architects who have barely read his books but hold disdain for him.claim0.803
  Part of her defense of Alexander's serious consideration.
• Alexander's principles are universal across substrates—architecture, digital products, design—because they address people and their needs.claim0.801
• Architects and technologists are arguing about the definition of architecture.claim0.798
  Diagnosis of the core conflict behind the divergent receptions.