[dvqc]

Because the code is the entirety of the process. Any graph can be wrong, but the code cannot, because it is the implementation. The purpose of a graph is to allow the visualization of the process in an understandable manner. If it doesn't abstract away much from the code, you might as well look at the code directly

[MichaelZuo]

No?

Code is not always the same as the process or what the machine actually does... There are hundreds of posible factors from bitflips to a cable getting loose in a socket that could change either.

e.g. There clearly can be a computer configured with enough memory and dense enough memory that at least one bitflip is practically guaranteed in a certain unit time, so the actual process has to include that.

So the code is an abstraction just like the flowchart.

[coldtea]

>Code is not always the same as the process or what the machine actually does...

You started with why aren't they "just looking at the full flowchart [to understand the entirety]".

And the parent wrote that because the flowchart is not the entirety, the code is.

Do you think this retort you make above is refuting the parent's point? If anything, it expands it, going further against your original point: that's why they're not just looking at the full flowchart.

And, yes, "code is an abstraction, just like the flowchart", but code is the abstraction the programmer controls and tries to summarize and understand. The flowchart is a higher level abstraction of an abstraction.

[MichaelZuo]

Are you confused about the meaning of understanding vs a literal equivalence?

e.g. “ Because the code is the entirety of the process” is clearly false regardless of which way you look at it.

But ‘the code is the combined understanding of the entirety of the process’ may or may not be true depending on many many factors.

‘Understanding X’ clearly does not mean, or even imply, that it literally is this or that…

[coldtea]

>Are you confused about the meaning of understanding vs a literal equivalence?

No, but you seem to be about any context not spelled out completely and pedantically.

>e.g. “ Because the code is the entirety of the process” is clearly false regardless of which way you look at it.

A coder works on code (literally editing lines of code, which is what they deliver), and is called to create, understand, and debug code.

Else, sure, code also runs on some server, by some organization, that had meetings to decide the requirements, and there are also end users, and the whole thing runs in some planet, inside a universe, or perhaps a multi-verse, so the code its not the entirety of the process /s

[dvqc]

You have processes more formal and thorough than their code implementation? Really?

At the end of the day, is it the cover-every-possible-bitflip-and-gamma-ray-bursts process that produces results out of thin air, or is it the machine running the code?

I don't believe this is arguing in good faith.

[MichaelZuo]

I never said I had such processes?

You seem to be making a logical fallacy to impute that it somehow must exist.

e.g. “ The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Also why would any other reader, including me, care about beliefs about certain words more than the actual words?