Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New term to describe bad programming: Biological

doubtingtommaso.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 17 posts

Re: New term to describe bad programming: Biological

#2

Post by muhamm »

-> "A good developer would never put the end of the digestive system right next to the start of the reproduction system - not even if that would require fewer lines of code (which it undoubtedly did)."

Whatever point he's trying to make in this post - and I'm not going to take the time to try to figure it out - I'm sure there's a simpler way of saying it.

Re: New term to describe bad programming: Biological

#3

Post by philwelch »

muhamm wrote: post #2

-> "A good developer would never put the end of the digestive system right next to the start of the reproduction system - not even if that would require fewer lines of code (which it undoubtedly did)." Whatever point he's trying to make in this post - and I'm not going to take the time to try to figure it out - I'm sure there's a simpler way of saying it.

Basically, "biological" describes a system that works decently, and which has grown through incremental changes, and yet is a poorly architected mess inside. It describes something that appears to be great from the way it works and the way it looks on the outside, even if the internals are a mess that require 10 years of schooling and residency to fully understand and maintain ;)

Re: New term to describe bad programming: Biological

#5

Post by DannoHung »

dejb wrote: post #4

I've certainly worked with some programmers who's approach seemed more like evolution and intelligent design.

Heh, best argument against creationism yet: If God were omnipotent and omniscient and God designed the human body, then it wouldn't be such a phenomenal mess!

Re: New term to describe bad programming: Biological

#7

Post by Scriptor »

DannoHung wrote: post #5
dejb wrote: post #4

I've certainly worked with some programmers who's approach seemed more like evolution and intelligent design.

Heh, best argument against creationism yet: If God were omnipotent and omniscient and God designed the human body, then it wouldn't be such a phenomenal mess!

Or maybe the Universe was a hastily done outsourcing job?

Seriously though, as messy as organ systems and biochemistry may be, the weird thing is that it all works by itself, using basic chemical properties. I remember how some textbooks can make it sound like proteins and molecules are ordered around in a cell, but in reality everything just floats around, is attracted and repelled to other stuff in the right places, and it works.

Re: New term to describe bad programming: Biological

#8

Post by donaldc »

He has a point for smaller-scale programming. Certainly, even when designing part of a larger system, one should aim to be as clear and well-structured as possible.

But beyond a certain scale, complex systems, including complex software, must be grown and not master-planned. This is one of the main advantages of iterative design and development.

Organic life passed this level of complexity long ago. Yes, evolution is dumb enough that it has passed up some obvious improvements. But humans are not (at least not yet) so smart that they could design even a bacterium from scratch, without resorting to iteration, and trial-and-error.

Re: New term to describe bad programming: Biological

#10

Post by stcredzero »

rw wrote: post #6

So, basically, we need to refactor the human body. I am quite alright with that.

So am I, provided you either have Unit Tests, Design by Contract specs, and/or functional specs for everything. If you don't, then it might be a literal act of suicide.
Post reply on HN