3 ms·
Considering that it's 2021, and that more static typing in mammalian cells would have prevented some... unfortunate bugs, I would say no.
by NtrllyIntrstd 5y ago
Considering that it's 2021, and that more static typing in mammalian cells would have prevented some... unfortunate bugs, I would say no.
- NtrllyIntrstd 5y ago* Sorry, of course I meant ProteinConstructionProviderFactorySingleton
- ankurdhama 5y agoFactory or Singleton or whatever patterns have nothing to do with static typing.
- NtrllyIntrstd 5y agoThat was meant as an unrelated jab at Java/OOP (y'know because Uncle Bob). Can't name it cell as that would be too obvious ;)
- etaioinshrdlu 5y agoWe don't need static typing, we need code signing. Or at least removing the biological equivalent of auto-running code on CD's inserted into a Windows 98 machine.
- NtrllyIntrstd 5y agoI don't seem to follow you 100%. Are you referring to biology or to software? In a biological sense I can't really see how a trusted platform would work. And even then it wouldn't protect against internal malicious code? I was simply referring to turning Cell :: tRNA -> Protein into Cell :: HumantRNA -> Protein :) And on a software perspective trust isn't really the issue here. Trusted buggy code is still buggy code.
- nlitened 5y agoYet statically typed biological systems are yet to be ever seen to evolve into existence :)
- NtrllyIntrstd 5y agoWell, we need to give good ol' evolution a bit of slack here, considering that it's not intelligently designed ;)