9 ms·
> "Refactoring" is part of the current paradigm, so the act of refactoring is not a pardigm shift. The example you cited to justify that claim is a difference
by westoncb 8y ago
> "Refactoring" is part of the current paradigm, so the act of refactoring is not a pardigm shift.
The example you cited to justify that claim is a difference in magnitude, not intrinsic structure. I brought up refactoring as an analogy to highlight the key features of another structure less familiar to software developers.
- trashtester 8y agoThe point of my example, is that the paradigm shift typically involves new people, with a new outlook, sometimes a different education or skill set, etc. They often are younger (but not always, sometimes they are just visionaries finally proven true, like Hinton). When there is a paradigm shift, there is typically an "old guard" that is not able to or willing to let go of the old way, and that gets left behind. This is why the saying goes: "Science advances one funeral at a time". In most cases (at least in my experience), refactoring is done either by the same team of programmers creating the original version, or a new team with a similar outlook to the old team. This means that there is not really an "old guard" to leave behind. But maybe you meant some other type of refactoring?
- westoncb 8y agoThe key word in my previous comment would be 'analogy'. In any analogy, some elements in the analogous domain have no mapping. I was highlighting the isomorphism between code undergoing refactors and theories undergoing paradigm shifts, in terms of linguistic structure; I was not commenting on the social components of either.