5 ms·
This is a bizarre piece riddled with odd metaphors and attempts at sounding smarter than it is, e.g. through mathematical parlance. >Let’s say that a system X
by 000ooo000 2y ago
This is a bizarre piece riddled with odd metaphors and attempts at sounding smarter than it is, e.g. through mathematical parlance.
>Let’s say that a system X is well-designed. Someone comes along and changes it – by definition, quickly and easily – to a different system X’. Now X’ either continues to be well-designed; in which case it can be quickly and easily modified again to a different system X’’; or it will enter a badly designed state and hence be difficult to modify.
???
- edflsafoiewq 2y agoSeems simply stated and correct to me. Nigel Tao expresses the same idea this way > Software has a Peter Principle. If a piece of code is comprehensible, someone will extend it, so they can apply it to their own problem. If it’s incomprehensible, they’ll write their own code instead. Code tends to be extended to its level of incomprehensibility.
- lanstin 2y agoYeah this is the main truth in the fine article.
- marcosdumay 2y agoOk, I'm about to go read the article yet, but this seems insightful to me. A badly designed system tends to stay badly designed, while a well designed one is free to mutate. And that's inherent. Personally, I have never thought about that.
- wesammikhail 2y agoThe real bizarre piece here is your comment that considers X´ a trademarked math parlance... People like you baffle me not gonna lie. Not only is the author correct about what he said, he expressed it just fine. get off your high horse.
- lioeters 2y ago> attempts at sounding smarter It's possible that they are smarter, and use mathematical language as a matter of course in their thinking and speech.