&gt; but you are right the future will be the status quo of contracts written in ambiguous english language where we pay someone 300&#x2F;hr to argue over what the definition of the word &quot;is&quot; is.<p>$300 is the low end of the spectrum, dotcomrade.<p>And trust me, I assure you that there are very many exceedingly important circumstances where reasonable minds could disagree <i>vehemently</i> over the definition of &quot;is&quot; in a given context.<p>[Here is a recent example of an and&#x2F;or typo potentially costing $3B.](<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;nypost.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;12&#x2F;14&#x2F;caesars-may-sink-because-of-alleged-3b-typo&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;nypost.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;12&#x2F;14&#x2F;caesars-may-sink-because-of-all...</a>) I don&#x27;t recall how this all came out in the wash, but put it this way: precision matters.<p>Or, to put it another way: why do people who spend all day writing software code behave as if contracts can be written with any less precision? Dismissing arguments over the definition of &quot;is&quot; is the same as steamrolling over variable types in a strictly typed language. It is just indicative you don&#x27;t have much respect for working in that language.