LWN.net Logo

Quotes of the week

Rebase is not (yet) a first class command in Mercurial, so we get fewer misguided users of it than Git, but even in my own work I occasionally have to stop and think: is everything I'm about to rebase local only or am I going to end up with a bunch of duplicate csets on the server?
-- Matt Mackall

But wht did you expect? The original authors of the code are long gone and maintenance is done by newcomers who are patching the code bit by bit. What you get from such a development model is pretty predictable: ~1 billion years old spaghetti DNA that no-one truly understands.
-- Ingo Molnar takes the long view
(Log in to post comments)

Quotes of the week

Posted Jan 21, 2011 2:36 UTC (Fri) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link]

maintenance is done by newcomers who are patching the code bit by bit.
Not true. A lot of the maintenance is being done by copy and paste, including the tendency to copy whole chunks and then have the two copies slowly diverge.

Quotes of the week

Posted Jan 21, 2011 12:28 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

And then you get people who think it's fun to insert half a byte in the middle of the code and shift the rest up by a half-byte.

Quotes of the week

Posted Jan 28, 2011 15:02 UTC (Fri) by Darkstar (guest, #28767) [Link]

I think the quote lacks the required context. He was talking about human DNA, not about programming:

>> Human communication methods are all buggy as hell :)
>Not to mention that they are slow, inefficient and ambiguous.
>But wht did you expect? The original authors of the code are long gone and maintenance is done by newcomers who are patching the code bit by bit. What you get from such a development model is pretty predictable: ~1 billion years old spaghetti DNA that no-one truly understands.

It's actually only funny if you see it in that context: "bit-by-bit" changes to the DNA (=mutations) etc..

But it's nice to see how similar human evolution and programming really are

-Darkstar

Quotes of the week

Posted Jan 29, 2011 19:17 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

i.e., not at all similar? The genome is not a computer program. It's nothing like a computer program.

Quotes of the week

Posted Feb 3, 2011 10:27 UTC (Thu) by Darkstar (guest, #28767) [Link]

Wrong. The RNA is a "blueprint" that is processed by a ribosome. This is similar to what a turing machine does.
Ribosomes take input (the RNA), process it, and produce output (the proteins).

I didn't say it is the same as a computer program. But it is definitely similar.

-Darkstar

Copyright © 2011, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds