>>8
in a natural language, the syntax can be "close enough" and still perform, because of how it's interpreted
1.
The interpreter -- the reader -- is sentient. As a result, no two interpreters will behave the same way. Some interpreters may find a fault in one block of natural language that another interpreter would not. And some blocks of natural language may intentionally introduce faults in order to achieve a specific goal
2.
It would be erroneous, then, to assume that the same standards for well-formed syntax in programming should necessarily be applied to a natural language. This brings into question any defense of Zhivago's antisocial behavior by claiming that it serves to elucidate a teachable moment. Either the message Zhivago aims to teach is false, the method Zhivago chooses to use to teach is incongruous to the message and therefore erroneous, or Zhivago does not intend for his punishment to teach at all. In all three cases, one can make the argument that Zhivago's behavior is unacceptable.
________________
1As you can see, "it" is an ambiguous reference that may refer to a given natural language, or the syntax of a given natural language. It doesn't need to be explicitly defined, because the reader will interpret "the natural language" and "the syntax of the natural language" as conceptually equivalent in this context.
Additionally, the sentence was not properly punctuated, resulting in broken syntax. However, the sentence is still able to be read, because the interpreter is flexible. But in a programming language, "It is either perfect, or not."
2For example, this paragraph, on two occasions, used two hyphens typed consecutively (--) in order to simulate an em dash (—). Syntactically, these hyphens carry no meaning when connected this way. This practice takes advantage of the ability of the natural language interpreter to automatically locate meta-similarities between symbols.
See "It's not a bug, it's a feature" for a possible parallel to programming practice.