[jimbokun]

"I really think other judges should follow the example he set and at least develop a core understanding in a similar fashion."

Many judges probably do, every day, in lots of technically specialized fields, and we're just not paying attention because we're not experts in those fields, either.

Shouldn't assume our field is so much harder for judges to understand than medical, scientific, and other specialized fields judges need to weigh in on.

[agumonkey]

Not more difficult per se, but more obfuscated. So much brands, paradigms, domain specific metalanguage. Medicine, physics have some kind of shared, time-tested foundations.

[Nicholas_C]

>Medicine, physics have some kind of shared, time-tested foundations.

So do programming languages.

[joslin01]

You could argue programming really took off in the 80s, and look at the plethora of languages then that are obsolete. Medicine and physics are more than 100 years old; programming is very new in the grand scheme of things and rapidly changing as it "finds itself." It's not very convincing to assert it has "time-tested foundations."

[agumonkey]

You mean the various kinds of semantics ? in that case yes, otherwise if it's for framework of the day, stack of the day it's hard to reason and compare anything.