Re:Should lawyers learn to code? Arguments for and against
by maxerickson on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @01:21PM
(#20636800)
US jurisdictions mostly produce the organized documents you speak of. For instance, the codified laws here:
Re:Should lawyers learn to code? Arguments for and against
by Udik on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @02:35PM
(#20637519)
This (from a quick reading, I might have misunderstood) seems to be a system for categorising laws, but not exactly what I was talking about: when you look for something, you're still referring to individual laws, by law number or popular name.
Instead, when you want to read a computer program, you don't look at individual commits to the code base, you look at its files. Commits are more or less irrelevant, what counts is the most recent version of a set of documents, and each commit might create, modify or delete more than one document.
It seems only a change in perspective, the end result is the same; but reasoning in terms of documents with well-organised names and responsibilities, describing processes and data and designed for reusability, is much easier and more compact.
Re:Should lawyers learn to code? Arguments for and against
by maxerickson on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @11:43PM
(#20641653)
Here's a better link, to the text of the United States Code:
It's still full of references to bills and such, but it is the consolidated text of the law.
Re:Should lawyers learn to code? Arguments for and against
by james_in_the_uk on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @05:36PM
(#20639388)
This is one aspect of how LexisNexis and Westlaw make their money. Copies of legal instruments in their up-to-date 'as amended' form are often behind a paywall.
What I think is missing is a concept of document: commits (laws) just accumulate on top of each other without producing named, organized documents (files, in proper source control systems) with clear responsibilities, that can be easily referred to from other documents, and of which the latest version is the only one that counts.