4 ms·

I am a solo in a multi-million line of code codebase, and im always amazed about how many detail are still in my memory, even when i dont see those particular c

I am a solo in a multi-million line of code codebase, and im always amazed about how many detail are still in my memory, even when i dont see those particular chunks of code for a year. It amazes me mostly because this is not the sort of tasks our brains were specialized in doing, by estimating our development path in nature as mammals. We discover and/or create new models and yet, we are able to adapt to them with some effort. Our new environments will probably affect the DNA that have the brain design, and we will pass all of this as a legacy to our kind. The brain is such a masterpiece of nature.

cat199 7y ago
> It amazes me mostly because this is not the sort of tasks our brains were specialized in doing, by estimating our development path in nature as mammals. concievably this might be similar to spatial navigation, which would be something we'd evolve for as hunter/gatherers
- vlovich123 7y ago
  And that we build artificial structures that align to how our brain operates. I suspect the source code written & the tools built would look a bit different if they're tuned to a brain with a totally different operational principle.
  - oscargrouch 7y ago
    This is a great observation. Our tools would be designed according to our experience of the world. But theres another catch, the tools we use change the shape of our mindset, leading us to design other tools that now map to this new perception of reality we have with the new mindset we built by using the former tools. The hunter-gatherer example given in the first comment for instance, i bet with enough evolutionary steps, we will not be able to trace back to that mindset, because we have "patched" our own mindset so many times with new tools(over tools) that we will have very little "mindset identity" to share with our former "hunters-gatherers" primordial cousins.
- Geee 7y ago
  Although, I think programming languages could be designed to be even more friendly for our visual/spatial brain. I don't think text-files are optimal.
- thedirt0115 7y ago
  Ooh, this seems like something we can test! Brain scan while doing spatial navigation tasks vs tasks that require reasoning about the structure of code -- hypothesis would be that it should light up some of the same areas?
arh68 7y ago
When you revisit old code, does it seem like a room in a house? Does it make you think of other code? (code nearby, or maybe code you write around the same time..?) Honestly just curious. It feels like rooms in houses to me. You are brave to handle that much code, imo.
- oscargrouch 7y ago
  I've worked with lot of different codebases in my life, but nothing ever like the one im dealing now, so thats why i had no idea how/if i could handle it. Of course theres a erosion process if you dont touch that piece of code for more than 1 year, and it happens with a codebase of that side, but the 'partial data' is is still there, and with a couple of minutes dealing with it, you recover the information. Its better when you shape the code yourself.. when you lay down the objects, methods, etc.. But this also works great with code i've happen to just use. For the architecture and where things are.. be it files, methods, or where i could find something i want.. there were no lost. I feel i need this partial recovery process mostly for codebases with 2 or more years, and the lost is minimal and can be recovered quickly. Now being more specific over your question, for me it fells more like a map, smaller maps or trees connected to top-level maps... But yes, it feels a little like rooms as in a quadtree, where you need to specialize and ignore the other parts of the tree for a bit, much like the occlusion/visibility process that algorithm gives. By the way is great that you have used this analogy, because this is also part of an observation i've had about laying down the information for a specific goal i have in mind. I cant wait to experiment with this as soon as i finish this thing im working on, to see if its really cool as my intuition is telling me..

cat199 7y ago

> It amazes me mostly because this is not the sort of tasks our brains were specialized in doing, by estimating our development path in nature as mammals. concievably this might be similar to spatial navigation, which would be something we'd evolve for as hunter/gatherers

vlovich123 7y ago
And that we build artificial structures that align to how our brain operates. I suspect the source code written & the tools built would look a bit different if they're tuned to a brain with a totally different operational principle.
- oscargrouch 7y ago
  This is a great observation. Our tools would be designed according to our experience of the world. But theres another catch, the tools we use change the shape of our mindset, leading us to design other tools that now map to this new perception of reality we have with the new mindset we built by using the former tools. The hunter-gatherer example given in the first comment for instance, i bet with enough evolutionary steps, we will not be able to trace back to that mindset, because we have "patched" our own mindset so many times with new tools(over tools) that we will have very little "mindset identity" to share with our former "hunters-gatherers" primordial cousins.
Geee 7y ago
Although, I think programming languages could be designed to be even more friendly for our visual/spatial brain. I don't think text-files are optimal.
thedirt0115 7y ago
Ooh, this seems like something we can test! Brain scan while doing spatial navigation tasks vs tasks that require reasoning about the structure of code -- hypothesis would be that it should light up some of the same areas?

arh68 7y ago

When you revisit old code, does it seem like a room in a house? Does it make you think of other code? (code nearby, or maybe code you write around the same time..?) Honestly just curious. It feels like rooms in houses to me. You are brave to handle that much code, imo.

oscargrouch 7y ago
I've worked with lot of different codebases in my life, but nothing ever like the one im dealing now, so thats why i had no idea how/if i could handle it. Of course theres a erosion process if you dont touch that piece of code for more than 1 year, and it happens with a codebase of that side, but the 'partial data' is is still there, and with a couple of minutes dealing with it, you recover the information. Its better when you shape the code yourself.. when you lay down the objects, methods, etc.. But this also works great with code i've happen to just use. For the architecture and where things are.. be it files, methods, or where i could find something i want.. there were no lost. I feel i need this partial recovery process mostly for codebases with 2 or more years, and the lost is minimal and can be recovered quickly. Now being more specific over your question, for me it fells more like a map, smaller maps or trees connected to top-level maps... But yes, it feels a little like rooms as in a quadtree, where you need to specialize and ignore the other parts of the tree for a bit, much like the occlusion/visibility process that algorithm gives. By the way is great that you have used this analogy, because this is also part of an observation i've had about laying down the information for a specific goal i have in mind. I cant wait to experiment with this as soon as i finish this thing im working on, to see if its really cool as my intuition is telling me..