Pretty sure there's just a different notion of "Computable" going on. Author probably is choosing their (very strict!) definition of computable, whereas most folks would consider "Computable" to be "A computer could currently do it".
Regardless of whether yes, the given example
program is computable (it is), the general folks of the CS world probably understand it to be uncomputable because no computer could run that properly due to the impossible complexity in `if god`.
It does bother me a little bit when an academic writes an entire article about their specific definition of a word, then lambastes the world for asking dumb questions using a different definition of the same word, and refusing to elaborate.
Yeah, if you're talking to CS folks who have encountered that definition as part of a theory class, then sure, good chances they could be scolded for asking the wrong questions using that word.
But that's a small bit of CS undergrads, and a very small part of the internet / wider world, who have a more colloquial definition of it. Not sure it's entirely worth scolding them, is all I'm saying.
Regardless of whether yes, the given example program is computable (it is), the general folks of the CS world probably understand it to be uncomputable because no computer could run that properly due to the impossible complexity in `if god`.
It does bother me a little bit when an academic writes an entire article about their specific definition of a word, then lambastes the world for asking dumb questions using a different definition of the same word, and refusing to elaborate.