User avatar
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

Why is software not organised like the way bird watchers do?

March 28th, 2016, 6:50 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteAnd almost all creatures get 50% of the DNA from each parent so the system is far more flexible than most code libraries. That's called the fragile base class problem, aka implementation inheritance, which is bad.So, DNA is not all that good.DNA must be doing something right (or coders must be doing something wrong) because the DNA version of this has worked for hundreds of millions of years and probably around 10^20 to 10^30 individual creatures. You, yourself, are the product of mixing chunks of code from your parents.The base classes are extremely robust in the biological realm.You are not unhappy that it _took_ DNA millions of years to get to this stage?What makes you think DNA has not ALWAYs had this property? 47% of the critical genes in a yeast cell can be swapped for the versions in the human cell and they still work. Try swapping code modules between VAX VMS and Windows 10 and see what happens.What makes you think DNA was otherwise?yes, Windows does not support TK50 tapes.It's the fact that virtually every organism shares a lot of code that says something about the base classes and overall robustness in times past. Yeast and humans have not shared a common ancestor for between 1 and 1.8 billion years, yet they share significant common code elements. It seems highly unlikely that all these ancient ancestors lack a quality that all their descendants have.I wonder if anything in Windows would be a plug-and-play replacement for anything in VMS? The two OSes seem to use different file systems, different memory architectures, different time share systems, different kernels, etc. Perhaps some basic text parsing or serial port I/O modules might be compatible?In any case, whether one likes DNA or not, it's the inheritance patterns of that DNA that define how bird watchers classify birds.
User avatar
Topic Author
Posts: 62171
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam

Why is software not organised like the way bird watchers do?

March 29th, 2016, 6:03 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: PolterEverything is Miscellaneous!QuoteDavid Weinberger's new book covers the breakdown of the established order of ordering. He explains how methods of categorization designed for physical objects fail when we can instead put things in multiple categories at once, and search them in many ways. This is no dry book on taxonomy, but has the insight and wit you'd expect from the author of The Cluetrain Manifesto, Small Pieces Loosely Joined, and a former writer for Woody Allen. talk! Did Woody Allen train him? He is a great speaker. And he knows the stuff (it takes a philosopher). I could listen to him for hours.The 19th century tree-based physical atomic hierarchies don't work in the digital area. The Frege defining attribute theory is not good enough anymore. Too static. Tree-based searching is indeed because there is no such thing as a tree. In that regard C++ templates (and that policy based design) are slightly more flexible than OOP hierarchies, just about.What is needed are ad-hoc, dynamic categories like hammer->nails->wood->trees->chop down->Husqvarna->Al Gore."Two kinds of people: those who like buckets and them that don't.""Dewey loved his decimals"
Last edited by Cuchulainn on March 28th, 2016, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

PW by JB has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...

Twitter LinkedIn Instagram



Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...