No Other Coins Before Me
Thou Shalt Not Attempt To Mutate The Blockchain
The blockchain has always been about consensus first and foremost. If a clear majority of the economic power decides to change something then that thing will change. There's nothing magical in the blockchain to prevent that. You can always decide that it's wrong and remain on the "classic" version, but if you don't convince anybody else to follow you there won't be any value.
More generally, I don't see how any coder would take the "code is law" thing seriously. All code has its share of bugs. Even if you formally verify it you may still have a bug in your verification code or your assumptions. The tiniest mistake can lead to catastrophe, as we've seen lately.
Code isn't law, law itself isn't law, it's how humans apply the law that's law. Removing the human factor from it isn't a feature, it's a terrifying totalitarian dystopia.
"Hello sir, the algorithm detected that $10 was missing from your utility bill 12 years ago, with the late fine, processing fees and interests you now owe us $1298.51. Please pay within a week."
"I can't pay this and I need to take care of my family. I'll have to mortgage the house!"
"I'm sorry sir, code is law. Beep boop."
Judge Dredd: blockchain edition.
Except then they hard forked, proving that political consensus still rules. The benefits of crypto-secured mathematical consensus are still subject to politics and messy human institutions. "Code is law" is a lie.
The funny thing is, this is a corner they painted themselves into. If they'd planted their flag only on decentralization, automation and trustlessness, and ignored "code is law", they wouldn't be having this problem today. Ethereum would be a technological advance on what we already accept: human economics.
Seems a little strange to stand by your prediction now when we have the benefit of hindsight and can see pretty clearly that you were wrong.
When the slaves from the southern US started escaping north and towards Canada, many northerners who aided them were put on trial because technically they broke a law because slaves were considered property.
The jury would acquit them because they did not believe in the spirit of the law.
Some people believe jury nullification is required for a truly democratic justice system.
Also in this scenario, the fork is essentially the majority's way of saying "we don't believe in the spirit of this contract, it wasn't meant to behave that way." Obviously, that brings up many complications. But the majority believed that a fork is essential to save the platform and worth the potential split in the community.
Either the code is the contract or it isn't.
Btw -- what has the DAO even accomplished after they 'saved' it?
It has warned a lot of people to stay the hell away from this kind of construct because it can't be trusted. That's a pretty good accomplishment.