I think the answer is simple: Software is instructions we give to the computer.
Seems reasonable to believe the thing happening due to the instructions is on another level of “abstract artifact” corroborating the point despite semantic nuances.
> Seems reasonable to believe the thing happening due to the instructions is on another level of “abstract artifact”
Well, yes. Thing happening due to execution of instructions is typically[1] not those instructions.
> Or as another commenter said, the runtime execution?
Software is a list of instructions. Runtime execution is a process (of executing those instructions). What do you mean by your comment?
In other words, I think I was trying to say I simply disagree with, or don't understand the point of the article due to the massive nuances.
Also, yes, I love quines. And they're a great example of a nuance I'm conveying here.
Are stories just ordered words?
CPU instructions may very well not be intentional. Do you know every instruction that your compiler spits out?
My point is that calling software just “instructions” is overly reductive.
They very fact that CPU instructions can have semantic meaning shows that.
The compiler/interpreter/AI translates the instructions I give in a high-level language or now even in natural language to the computer.
So in this sense any intentional speech is "software" too.