When Linus Torvalds encouraged thousands of anonymous programmers to critique computer code and add value on their own. the result was Linux software. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, though obviously the factors affecting your assessment will be wildly different to those involved in typical "Lit Crit" contexts.

(Bear in mind an awful lot of "natural" language use is specifically designed to be ambiguous / hedged, but that's rarely advantageous for computer code.)

I assume what you are actually asking here is whether it's acceptable to speak of critiquing computer code (i.e. - can we use the verb in that way?). That might be a matter of opinion. But if you're actually asking whether it's "meaningful", where would you draw the line? Are we prepared to "critique" the DNA code of the human genome? (Some might say that code is a bit "messy"! :)

Does the composition meet the goals it set out to? DNA code isn't end-outcome oriented like code and oration.

!!! Of course it is! The overriding goal for any coherent set of DNA code (such as a "selfish" gene) is to make copies of itself! What could be a greater motivation than that? It even overrides "self"-preservation.

It depends on what it means to meet the end user's reasoning systems. What kind of talk is that?

DNA is a chemical that catalyzes copies of itself and (ultimately) proteins. It's "code" only in a metaphorical sense.

As rhetoric is all about being persuasive and/or impressive, even if just for effect, it is hard to see how code can be rhetorical. Who is it persuading or trying to impress?

@RoaringFish it has been persuading many to share their personal info and data on social media. So it's very much alive and well, having developed into "design". But the old way of critiquing was focused on the individual orator, the Martin Luther King Jrs and Lincoln, as examples. Coders have no name recognition and it's developed with many individuals. So, the old rhetorical critique is not dead. It's just what you see trump saying on tv.

@deadrat the audience's ability to follow the persuasion's ideas (re: genes)

@Miike ~ so where do I see this code that you say persuaded me to use social media? I don't recall ever seeing the code for Facebook, for example.

@RoaringFish rhetoric was 'invented' to get poor people fair trials. The OJ dream team. The national ad council. Rhetoric then spawned the sophist. Someone who argues just to win, bending every rule. It's weak. Your attempts to nail me down with comma splices is weak.

@RoaringFish someone told you OMG checkout this website. That's a rhetorical comment itself. Idk how you got on Facebook. But it's design has kept you there.

@FumbleFingers bravo. It's the intellectual gene that's external of our bodies and internal to our society. The meme. The viral media. The cultural practices and performances that embody a "selfish" gene or meme.

@Miike ~ as you agree that I never saw the code for facebook, nor did anybody else except the coders, then obviously it wasn't the code that persuaded me (or anybody else) to join Facebook, so the code itself cannot be considered to be rhetorical. By definition.

@FumbleFingers I think I'd critique the end and see if it justifies the means.

@RoaringFish you saw the code manifested as a GUI. That's still code. Just like oration is not a written text. The design of the site becomes part of the rhetorical tools. "Use every possible means to persuade...@aristotle. Otherwise you're just staring at screen.

@Miike ~ you are confusing the medium and the message. The paper/plastic/glass/screen/whatever that an advert is displayed on is not part of the rhetoric. Only the message that the advert sends is rhetoric. In the same way neither the laptop screen nor the coding that that controls it is rhetoric. Only the words that appear are rhetorical.

@RoaringFish you disappoint me. The medium is the message. I'm done with you. Rhetoric has grown into the plastic and pixels, the web design and the css and HTML. I can't believe You're not on the bus.

@Miike Rhetoric was "invented" long before poor people had any rights and long before there were trials. A meme is not a gene, none of which are external to our bodies and one of which are "intellectual". You can "critique the end" all you want, but it has nothing to do with presentation, which is what rhetoric is about.

Design is not code. What does an audience's ability have to do with an end user's reasoning system? I don't think you know what re means. The "manifestation" of a thing is different from the thing itself. I just talked to the ghost of Marsahll McLuhan. He said you know nothing of his work.

@Miike Dude, I think you've been in Kansas City too long.

Oops. "none which is "intellectual". Sorry.

Fine. Let's say you're right. Now what m

I've been in KC well enough now. And I don't have a care about media theory, I was just seeing how people would run with the idea and I saw the outcomes. Thanks for your participation.

@deadrat HTML code is design. That's obvious.

I'm just on a higher level than you, who seek to draw people down into the sewers you dwell in. I'm not into misery. Ciao.

Rhetoric was not invented as an occupation until Ancient Greece when civilization flourished and yes problems weren't new with crime and law and order. But thE Greeks allowed the accused to speak and persuade his peers of his innocence, something not done before. Also this gave rise to the lawyer class, and a new style of oration for the individual. His rights and her rights as citizens were acknowledged. This didn't happen in all time before as you so blockheadedky say @deadrat

@Miike Let's say I'm right? OK, we don't have to do that because we can always check to see that I'm right. But if we agree that I'm right, you want to know "Now what?" Well, now you concede you were wrong and thank me for correcting you. Isn't that the proper thing to do?

@Miike I don't care about media theory either, but you brought up McLuhan. Well, you quoted his famous medium/message line, but perhaps you didn't realize it. You probably didn't get my Woody Allen allusion either. Oh, well.

@Miike So you were just seeing how people would run with the idea? What was it you wanted to see? How people would react to erroneous claims? How'd that work out? And HTML is not design. It's a markup language.

'Code' has two readers: 1) machines {compilers...} and 2) people {other coders}. The machine is immune to 'rhetoric' {statements that are persuasive but not truthful}, and a coder is only likely to see rhetoric in the comments of the code {although the output of the running code may be rhetorical -- such as a phony graph}.