Software reuse is more like an organ transplant than snapping Lego blocks (2011)

Re:Software reuse is more like an organ transplant than snap... by DougWebb on Wednesday June 24, 2020 @09:55PM (#23636051)

Also with OOP and procedural programming you get lego blocks that can mutate. Lego blocks can transform themselves and other lego blocks. They form an interconnected network of entities that are constantly mutating.

That kind of sounds like a structure of living cells. They're more complex than a structure of lego blocks, but they can do a lot more too.

Don't take that as an argument in favor of OOP though. Building with legos is a lot easier to get right than building with cells would be.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Software reuse is more like an organ transplant than snap... by crimsonalucard5 on Wednesday June 24, 2020 @10:15PM (#23636181)

You can create building blocks of unlimited complexity or pure simplicity.

The key lies in your choice of primitives. Do you start off with a set primitives that are extremely complex or a set primitives that are simple but complete in the sense that you can build entities of unlimited complexity by composing simpler primitives?

I would say the latter method is easier. But there's no reason why the former method won't work. Biological evolution has built many examples of working machines with primitives of unimaginable complexity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Software reuse is more like an organ transplant than snap... by ElFitz on Thursday June 25, 2020 @11:33AM (#23641845)

Yes, it did. But it also had a couple billion years of trial and error to do so.

Basically, it's the infinite monkey theorem.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Software reuse is more like an organ transplant than snap... by crimsonalucard5 on Thursday June 25, 2020 @02:45PM (#23644070)

Yeah, I'm just saying it can work and it can work remarkably well and efficiently. It's just probably too complex for our limited intelligence to handle.

[ Parent | on HN ]