"David Gerard" wrote
And almost all of our processes are quick hacks someone thought would be a good idea at the time, and they're usually modified by putting hacks on hacks on hacks, building into a rococo fractal mosaic of prescriptions.
Which is a pretty good description of how evolution works, on a conventional model. _Especially_ the bit that the thing designed for one issue gets commandeered and adapted for another.
I think we can take comfort from the way the conventional model of evolution also has this to say: it's smarter than you. (No, I don't mean David G, I mean this is a more effective problem solving attack than a priori plans.)
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 18/09/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"David Gerard" wrote
And almost all of our processes are quick hacks someone thought would be a good idea at the time, and they're usually modified by putting hacks on hacks on hacks, building into a rococo fractal mosaic of prescriptions.
Which is a pretty good description of how evolution works, on a conventional model. _Especially_ the bit that the thing designed for one issue gets commandeered and adapted for another. I think we can take comfort from the way the conventional model of evolution also has this to say: it's smarter than you. (No, I don't mean David G, I mean this is a more effective problem solving attack than a priori plans.)
The analogy to evolution is remarkably appropriate in that the only "aim" evolution has is reproduction and spreading. Our swathes of process certainly do this, c.f. [[m:instruction creep]].
Whether this is what we actually want them to do in order to write an encyclopedia is another matter entirely.
(Kudzu was invented to supply similes for process.)
- d.