Hacker News Reader

I wouldn't put it exactly like this, but I agree that many systems chugging along today (such as the COBOL running on IBM metal that powers banks) are not something people try to (or can) comprehend all at once.

Is that really a problem though? We can solve problems empirically even if we don't keep the entire system's workings in our heads.

View on HN

You can solve problems empirically, but you can never guarantee you've hit all the edge cases the original code did. That's fine for non-mission critical systems, but would you be ok with your passenger jet onboard systems having been rebuilt from empirical observations?

That's a funny example, given that the Wright brothers were overwhelmingly empirical compared to their competitors and succeeded as a result, because the foundation of aerodynamics was fundamentally flawed at the time. In a real sense, those systems were built from empirical observations, and most human systematizing happens post-hoc.

I agree that formalizing observations into a system can lead to additional insights, though it would probably be hubris to assume the formalization is faultless.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com