Thanks for the code litany, you made my point. :)
I am not exactly sure what your point is.
Reading, understanding, and questioning the code (codes) is an
essential part of being an engineer. One could have a long and
productive career as an engineer without knowing anything about any
code but at one's retirement party one might wonder why one had done
the same thing for 45 years. The answer would probably be that nobody
trusted one to do anything more than plug numbers into a design program
and/or copy standard details onto a set of plans.
However, unfortunately many engineers never do progress to the
point where they understand the codes well enough to question
them. And they don't have time to comment on draft engineering code
documents because they are too busy commenting on the level
of bureaucracy in schools.
For example, ACI will be releasing a residential
concrete standard (ACI 332) that will be to the IRC what ACI 318 is
to the IBC. How many people on this list bothered to take the time to
comment on it?
In my opinion, what ACI put out for public comment was a pretty
worthless piece of trash. I am not sure how much improved the final
version will be. It has not come out yet, even though public comment
closed last July. However, even with significant improvements, it
will still be really bad. But if you had a chance to improve it, and
didn't bother, I don't think you have any grounds for complaining.
btw the "slab on air" illustration is a very good one, sometimes fewer
words create more meaning.
You are entitled to think whatever you want. Although in my
personal opinion, an engineer who refers to an "air-supported slab" or
an "air-supported bridge" deserves the ridicule they will receive.
If you can't deal with the concepts of "beams" and "columns" you
shouldn't be in engineering.
The term "air-supported" could, however, be used to refer to
things like the fabric domes that are used as enclosures for tennis
courts in the winter.