6 ms·

That quote is beautiful but it reminds me a lot of tales of hubris, although I do not believe in any god(s), I always felt some truth in that mythical sin. Can

by erelde 10y ago

That quote is beautiful but it reminds me a lot of tales of hubris, although I do not believe in any god(s), I always felt some truth in that mythical sin. Can we grow designed software? Or, can we design truly growing software? I guess it depends on the definition of growing you use, "scalable" ? "alive" ?

adrianN 10y ago
Refactor, refactor, refactor. Growing things adapt to changing circumstances. Software must adapt to changing requirements. Refactoring is the only way.
- JanezStupar 10y ago
  This is so important. We all know beautifully "designed" API's or libraries. The secret is that the "elegant" API design you see is usually the n-th iteration. Growing code is much like growing trees. The tree grows itself, what it requires is that it is pruned and helped to reshape in a fashion that will allow it to stay alive for a long time and bear fruit. But one needs to constantly prune the damn thing.
  - user0394890238 10y ago
    I like the tree metaphor. You start planting trees, maybe it's in an empty field, or maybe it's in an old forest. At some point it takes root and multiplies. People help plant your forest in unexpected places and it expands. At some point you try pruning and controlling the trees. And at some point a forest fire destroys it making way for a new forest to grow.
  - jgamman 10y ago
    software is gardening, not sculpture.
- cle 10y ago
  Is it? To continue the metaphor, one of the most important pieces of evolutionary growth is death.
Noseshine 10y ago
We can - but if we keep the analogy of grown things we can only grow stuff that has already been grown before and make only tiny changes. It's worth remembering that evolution has neither purpose nor direction. Even "adapting" is an aimless process, the changes are predictable only for very small adaptations. Major changes may lead to anything, including a "restart" (extinction event followed by something different). So the model has its limitations for human projects where we don't want to have quite that propensity for surprising outcomes.
- ontouchstart 10y ago
  In rapid changing environment, growth also implies learning. So perhaps we can also use learning as a new analogy of software development? An ongoing example of learning and growing a design is "Swift Evolution Process" https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process...
- OtterCoder 10y ago
  See, I've always seen the statement that evolution is intentionless to be a bit arrogant. Consciousness, as we are just starting to learn, is a property of emergent networks. Further, we are just starting to discover that phenotypical expression is so much more complex than 1/2mom + 1/2dad = baby. Evolution is calculating something, even if it's inscrutable to us.
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    > I've always seen the statement that evolution is intentionless to be a bit arrogant Assuming intent without any proof is the by far more outrageous statement. I have no intention of entering any discussion based on "believe" though.
DenisM 10y ago
Individual components must be designed to fail without taking down the entire system. This is the Free Market vs. Planned Economy debate all over again.

by erelde 10y ago

adrianN 10y ago

Refactor, refactor, refactor. Growing things adapt to changing circumstances. Software must adapt to changing requirements. Refactoring is the only way.

JanezStupar 10y ago
This is so important. We all know beautifully "designed" API's or libraries. The secret is that the "elegant" API design you see is usually the n-th iteration. Growing code is much like growing trees. The tree grows itself, what it requires is that it is pruned and helped to reshape in a fashion that will allow it to stay alive for a long time and bear fruit. But one needs to constantly prune the damn thing.
- user0394890238 10y ago
  I like the tree metaphor. You start planting trees, maybe it's in an empty field, or maybe it's in an old forest. At some point it takes root and multiplies. People help plant your forest in unexpected places and it expands. At some point you try pruning and controlling the trees. And at some point a forest fire destroys it making way for a new forest to grow.
- jgamman 10y ago
  software is gardening, not sculpture.
cle 10y ago
Is it? To continue the metaphor, one of the most important pieces of evolutionary growth is death.

Noseshine 10y ago

We can - but if we keep the analogy of grown things we can only grow stuff that has already been grown before and make only tiny changes. It's worth remembering that evolution has neither purpose nor direction. Even "adapting" is an aimless process, the changes are predictable only for very small adaptations. Major changes may lead to anything, including a "restart" (extinction event followed by something different). So the model has its limitations for human projects where we don't want to have quite that propensity for surprising outcomes.

ontouchstart 10y ago
In rapid changing environment, growth also implies learning. So perhaps we can also use learning as a new analogy of software development? An ongoing example of learning and growing a design is "Swift Evolution Process" https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process...
OtterCoder 10y ago
See, I've always seen the statement that evolution is intentionless to be a bit arrogant. Consciousness, as we are just starting to learn, is a property of emergent networks. Further, we are just starting to discover that phenotypical expression is so much more complex than 1/2mom + 1/2dad = baby. Evolution is calculating something, even if it's inscrutable to us.
- Noseshine 10y ago
  > I've always seen the statement that evolution is intentionless to be a bit arrogant Assuming intent without any proof is the by far more outrageous statement. I have no intention of entering any discussion based on "believe" though.

DenisM 10y ago

Individual components must be designed to fail without taking down the entire system. This is the Free Market vs. Planned Economy debate all over again.