Treating code as a means to an end, which is what I think you're describing, is just as bad as treating it as an end in itself. It should be neither an opaque black box nor a transparent 'bicycle of the mind'. In my opinion it cannot be lumped all in one category. It is an aspect of software systems. It may have many features, depending on where it is and how it is used.
Code can embody knowledge, but it is not the embodiment of knowledge. It can express functionality but it is not a functional component of a system. I think aspect is the best description: when you look at a system from the source code, you see some of it. Not a projection of the system over a set of dimensions as some people seem to treat it. It is not a textual description of the system. It is the part of the system you can see when you come at it from that side.
It's true that the 10-line code I was describing did provide some extra information, like the fact that there are different cases that are, have been, will be or could have been different... I agree that the code isn't the end result if that's what you're saying.
But the resistance to change is everywhere not only in the code and it locks projects into what they are. Only expansion is allowed. I'm not saying it's bad it's just what it is.
Code can embody knowledge, but it is not the embodiment of knowledge. It can express functionality but it is not a functional component of a system. I think aspect is the best description: when you look at a system from the source code, you see some of it. Not a projection of the system over a set of dimensions as some people seem to treat it. It is not a textual description of the system. It is the part of the system you can see when you come at it from that side.