Sometimes it gets worse still: you can have different theories according to (a) scientists doing basic research into physics or human perception/cognition, (b) computer science researchers inventing publishable papers/demos, (c) product managers or others making executive product decisions about what to implement, (d) low-level programmers doing the implementation, (e) user interface designers, (f) instructors and documentation authors, (h) marketers, (h) users of the software, and finally (i) the code itself.
Unless a critical proportion of the people in various stages of the process have a reasonable cross-disciplinary understanding and effective communication skills, models tend to diverge and software and its use go to shit.
There are some great comments about this buried in https://hn.algolia.com/?query=naur%20theory&sort=byPopularit....
The OP makes excellent points concerning the relative independence of design and code in the context of the "extreme programming" paradigm having become very common if not dominant.
-- Linus Torvalds
Isn't this definition circular, using "programmed" in defining "programming"?
 You could have probably guessed that the name was going to be "programming", but it might not have been.