Indeed. And even though I consider myself a technical person through and through, I wouldn't want the law to work like that. We, as humans, are not capable of specifying society's functioning at that precision. We need the fuzziness of humans in the loop.

Neither would I. Though every now and then I wouldn't dislike to be bound to rules that I can evaluate in advance, without having to bet on what a judge's a posteriori interpretation will be.

This is one of the services lawyers who are specialized in the area can provide; they will know the case law around particular rules, etc.

Tax Law is especially interesting here, because you can basically depend on what the IRS has said but there's a chance that even if they said X, the tax court will actually rule Y (in your favor). Sometimes the risk can be worth it (if you made a good-faith effort to comply with a reasonable understanding of the law, and the court rules against you, you just have to pay the tax; even if you were found unreasonable you pay the tax + penalty which often isn't that much).

I agree. But other times I'd also very much dislike being bound by "code" that the democratically elected lawmakers agree is buggy (buggy compared to their and the electorate's intentions).