Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nature, almost completely analog, has been around a thousand times longer than humans. How many times has 'evolution' used digital methods to accomplish something? Perhaps we've chosen to switch to digital because we're in a hurry and its easier ... in hopes of, some day, asymptotically approaching the advantages of analog.
DNA is digital. I think crucial digital feature is ability to have exact result from imperfect components, especially important for self-replicating systems. Instead of having calculation that is always off by 1%, you can have perfect result 99% of the time. And you can improve MTBF by stacking error correction on top of it, without necessarily having to improve manufacturing tolerances.
Most DNA errors turn out to be inconsequential to the individual. If a cell suffers catastrophic errors during reproduction, it typically just dies. Same for embryos, they fail to develop and get reabsorbed. Errors during normal RNA transcription tend to encode an impossible or useless protein that usually does nothing. Malformed RNA can also get permanently stuck in the cellular machinery meant to decode it, but this also has no real effect. That transcriptase floats around uselessly until it's broken down and replaced. You've got a nearly infinite number of them.
DNA and all the machinery around it is surprisingly messy and imprecise. But it all keeps working anyway because organisms have billions or trillions of redundant copies of their DNA.
*take with a grain of salt, I last studied this stuff many years ago.