I have to agree. The current title implies that it's a negative thing. I'm not sure why it was changed when posting here, since it completely changes the meaning as well.
I see no need to assign a value judgement to it, and somewhat resent doing so.
Might be good for juicing clicks by confirmation bias, but the idea is nevertheless that programming is a medium through which incomplete understanding can be refined, and eventually expressed.
Good or bad should be left to the reader to judge.
I like the idea, if only because I've philosophically approached software in terms of chewing what a program is from what it isn't.
> programming is a medium through which incomplete understanding can be refined, and eventually expressed.
Which, by all forms of understanding I possess, is a benefit or beneficial to the users of programming. Ergo, a good medium.
If the title were "Programming as a potential medium for expressing/refining not yet well-formed ideas", then there'd be no value judgment at all (and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation). But as it is, the title uses "poorly understood, sloppily-formulated ideas" which automatically puts a negative spin, which is in a way counter-acted in the original paper by "good medium", implying that the paper isn't actually about bad ideas and how they're propagated through code.
