I'm not complaining! I'm grateful to evolution for providing me such a wonderful mechanism called body.
But, I suppose you don't work in software development, do you? I say so because you, rightfully, took "maintenance" in its literal meaning, like "maintaining it the way it always was".
Unfortunately, in software development (and maybe other professions) maintenance mean simply that people changed their minds or discovered a new business case and your product must adapt, WITHOUT CHANGING ANY OTHER INTERACTION!!!
In real life, you can say: "he died because he drank poison", and it is a sad but accepted statement.
In software development, the same sentence will be rephrased like: "he died because the crappy developer left an unfixed bug in his Liver plugin".
Again, life is wonderful thing, and evolution clearly has to optimize for maximum efficiency. But in businness there are several times when you must give up some (or even much) efficiency for adaptability.
It looks like the author of the article does not understand the need for this tradeoff.
> "he died because he drank poison"
> "he died because the crappy developer left an unfixed bug in his Liver plugin"
Rather "He died because dna replication wasn't perfect and caused his liver to develop cancer", but I don't fully agree with article author either.
Chaos is a result of optimising for efficiency but also by doing do very gradually in a piecemeal manner. This kind of process can lead to local optima that are hard to get out of if you don't stop occasionally to rethink things and clean up. The thing is that cleaning up must also be very thoughtfully driven by efficiency. When it's done for aesthetic reasons you end up loosing much of efficiency you worked so hard to discover by making a mess.
I'm not complaining! I'm grateful to evolution for providing me such a wonderful mechanism called body.
But, I suppose you don't work in software development, do you? I say so because you, rightfully, took "maintenance" in its literal meaning, like "maintaining it the way it always was".
Unfortunately, in software development (and maybe other professions) maintenance mean simply that people changed their minds or discovered a new business case and your product must adapt, WITHOUT CHANGING ANY OTHER INTERACTION!!!
In real life, you can say: "he died because he drank poison", and it is a sad but accepted statement.
In software development, the same sentence will be rephrased like: "he died because the crappy developer left an unfixed bug in his Liver plugin".
Again, life is wonderful thing, and evolution clearly has to optimize for maximum efficiency. But in businness there are several times when you must give up some (or even much) efficiency for adaptability.
It looks like the author of the article does not understand the need for this tradeoff.