> In reality, I "argued" both. 

I mean if your argument is that a mallard (test) and a muscovy (docs) are both types of ducks but a mallard is not a muscovy and a muscovy is not a mallard, then I fail to see how we aren't on the same page. I can't put it any clearer than this: all mallards are ducks but not all ducks are mallards. In other words, a mallard is a duck, but it is not representative of all ducks. You can't look at a mallard and know everything there is to know about ducks. You'll be missing stuff. If you treat your mallard and duck as isomorphic you're going to land yourself into trouble, even if most (domesticated) ducks are mallards.

It isn't that complex and saying "don't be overly confident" isn't adding crazy amounts of complexity that is going to overwhelm yourself. It's simply a recognition that you can't write a perfect spec.

Look, munificent[0] is saying the same thing. So is Kinrany[1], and manmal[2]. Do you think we're all wrong? In exactly the same way?

Besides, this whole argument is literally a demonstration of our claim. If you could write a perfect spec you'd (and we'd) be communicating perfectly and there'd be no hangup. But if that were possible we wouldn't need to write code in programming languages in the first place![3]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44713138

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44713314

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44712266

[3] https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD667...

> I mean if your argument is that a mallard (test) and a muscovy (docs) are both types of ducks

To draw a more reasonable analogy with how the words are actually used on a normal basis, you'd have fowl (docs), ducks (specs), and mallards (tests). As before, the terms change in specificity, but do not refer to something else entirely. Pointing at a mallard and calling it a duck, or fowl, doesn't alter what it is. It is all the very same animal.

Yes, fowl could also refer to chickens just as documentation could refer to tax returns. 'Tis the nature of using a word lacking specificity. But from context one should be able to understand that we're not talking about tax returns here.

But I don't have an "argument". High school debate team is over there.

> It's simply a recognition that you can't write a perfect spec.

That was recognized from the onset. What is the purpose of adding this again?

> Do you think we're all wrong?

We're all bad at communicating, if that's what you are straining to ask. Which isn't exactly much of a revelation. We've both already indicated as such, as have many commenters that came before us.