3 ms·

Sloppy compared to what? What would you point to as better? Where would you put the urethra, for example? Many of your examples are contrived. Sure they have s

Sloppy compared to what? What would you point to as better? Where would you put the urethra, for example? Many of your examples are contrived. Sure they have some failure modes, but they also are succeeding trillions of times a day. I’d bet a lot of money a “human designed human” would not perform better, except for taking ideas from other humans, and only when done in very limited cases.

ceejayoz 6y ago
> Sloppy compared to what? What would you point to as better? Sloppy compared to, say, crocodiles, which largely haven't changed in hundreds of millions of years. We humans aren't well designed for our current use cases, as we changed a whole bunch of our behaviors in the last few hundred thousand years. > Where would you put the urethra, for example? I'd leave that up to a biomedical engineer. Perhaps they'd rig up a system like reptiles and birds have, where the useful water gets reabsorbed and they excrete urea crystals. > Sure they have some failure modes, but they also are succeeding trillions of times a day. Again, this is true for spaghetti code. It is a mistake to think "spaghetti = broken". Spaghetti = hard to understand/maintain.
- nwienert 6y ago
  The diff between the error rate of crocodiles, humans, and spaghetti code is really where it doesn’t stand up. Crocodiles > humans >>>>>>> spaghetti code. End of story, unless your spaghetti code only fails a very small amount, I guess. Not what I assume most people think when they think of it.
  - rowanG077 6y ago
    You keep ignoring the point that spaghetti code and error rate are not related by definition. It's been spelled out to you multiple times now.
  - nwienert 6y ago
    @rowan Won’t let me respond to you directly, but I haven’t failed to note that. I’ve never seen someone say anything positive about the reliability of spaghetti code.

ceejayoz 6y ago

> Sloppy compared to what? What would you point to as better? Sloppy compared to, say, crocodiles, which largely haven't changed in hundreds of millions of years. We humans aren't well designed for our current use cases, as we changed a whole bunch of our behaviors in the last few hundred thousand years. > Where would you put the urethra, for example? I'd leave that up to a biomedical engineer. Perhaps they'd rig up a system like reptiles and birds have, where the useful water gets reabsorbed and they excrete urea crystals. > Sure they have some failure modes, but they also are succeeding trillions of times a day. Again, this is true for spaghetti code. It is a mistake to think "spaghetti = broken". Spaghetti = hard to understand/maintain.

nwienert 6y ago
The diff between the error rate of crocodiles, humans, and spaghetti code is really where it doesn’t stand up. Crocodiles > humans >>>>>>> spaghetti code. End of story, unless your spaghetti code only fails a very small amount, I guess. Not what I assume most people think when they think of it.
- rowanG077 6y ago
  You keep ignoring the point that spaghetti code and error rate are not related by definition. It's been spelled out to you multiple times now.
- nwienert 6y ago
  @rowan Won’t let me respond to you directly, but I haven’t failed to note that. I’ve never seen someone say anything positive about the reliability of spaghetti code.