Why? A patent lacks full disclosure if it doesn't have enough information for a person skilled in the art to reproduce the invention; it must be enabling. Patents are not about specific implementations of an idea, they are about the idea itself. IMO, patents are much more accessable when they are written in plain language than in a specific source language because the ideas may be understood at the higher level that the patent protects and allows for implementation in any language.

Do you think that pharma companies should have to provide working versions of their drugs along with their applications? They usually do not have a fully working implementation at the time of application, and won't have anything they can prove works for many years after the necessary regulatory testing is finished. The same for huge mining equipment, it might take years to actually manufacture something that works, but the invention exists once it has been invented, not produced. Why should software be any different? We've grown used to a world where many people freely share their software, but that is their choice, not a moral obligation, just like any field of science.

Lastly, one thing that really irks me about the software patents debate is the constant dissing of patents because the idea is obvious. Of course it's obvious once you know the solution, but that's ex post facto analysis. Invention comes from discovering the solution, not from the complexity of the solution itself. I personally feel that things like the slide to unlock patent are more deserving of an innovation patent than a full patent, so there are definitely cases where things have gone wrong. But I do not believe the majority of cases fall into this category.