semantically

This means that reordering code segments, renaming variables, inlining or lifting functions wouldn't affect a match, if the code is semantically equivalent.

The problem is only misuse of <table>-elements for something which is not semantically a table.

Expressing your intent -- writing semantically -- is a general principle of clean code, and of clear communication in general.

By that I mean how close the JVM and JS are semantically.

Which is a great sentence, because semantically the pronoun referent is obligatorily female and singular.

Thus the probability that two semantically identical instruction sequences would have same encoding quickly goes to zero as instruction sequence increase.

And what about backward compatibility for porting Python 2 code that used.format to do formatting on what are semantically byte strings?

IME the only source of porting pain is libraries which conditionally use C++11 features where the C++03 and C++11 versions aren't semantically equivalent.

The compiler cannot know if those function calls are semantically superfluous or not.

Words are not useful if your variables don't really have semantically meaningful names.

I imagine there's some overlap with the psychology of memorizing passwords which are opaque semantically, but still need to be remembered.

In old-school languages we will just return nil, or (values....) Semantically there is no difference.

I doubt you understand what the word "semantically" means.

RE "The title is misleading, it lead to $120k in investment for his company, it did not 'make him 120k'" I agree, semantically it's not a very accurate title.

Furthermore, the author's definition of "native" is revisionist, placing it at a highly recent time frame, and categorizing it by features that are semantically disparate.

The irony is that what we are doing, semantically, is "centering." Yet to express that concept we are forced to refer to the entirely unrelated concepts of tables and cells, only because of the historical accident that table elements were the only way you could do many types of centering because CSS lacked basic facilities for layout.

Semantically, wouldn't one call a neanderthaler creating/perfecting a useful tool an engineer as well, even though science was not really used directly?

Semantically correct logic built upon false assumptions is still fundamentally incorrect.