Conventional programming is precise only about how, not what. It is not only not right, it is not even wrong.

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

• Conventional programming is precise only about how, not what.claim0.923
  Critique that typical code lacks precise specification of meaning.
• The correctness of programs is partly defined in terms of proper performance of the speech acts. Answers should be truthful and responsive, and promises should be kept. Sentences of logic expressing these forms of correctness can be generated automatically from the form of the program.claim0.776
  Second abstract claim.
• It is not only not right, it is not even wrong.quote0.768
  Quoted from Wolfgang Pauli, criticizing vagueness in conventional programming.
• A computer program is not defined by its language or hardware but as an abstract causal pattern, a dynamic mathematical structure that influences the physical universe without violating its causal closure.claim0.766
  Paper's ontological characterization of software enabling cyberanimism
• Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.quote0.758
  Einstein's assertion invoked to explain why BMR preserves accuracy while reducing complexity
• Explicitly parallel programs are not inherently harder to design or understand than functional specifications.claim0.748
  C-Linda DNA comparison is comparable in length and clarity to Crystal; pragmatic runtime granularity control outweighs compiler optimization ideals.
• The Elephant programmer in verifying his program need not show that the promise will be fulfilled because it was made. It is enough that he show it will be fulfilled.claim0.748
  Rejection of one of Dorschel's conditions for happy performance.
• Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise.concept0.746
  Epigraph motivating the necessity of precise semantic specification in programming