How Software Systems Learn

How Software Systems Learn: What happens after they are built by D'NarbTrawets?.

A book that begs to be written.

Or, to save money, we can borrow the paperback of Sartre's Nausea (from the back cover: "Nausea is the story of Antoine Roquentin, a French writer who is horrified at his own existence...His thoughts culminate in a pervasive overpowering feeling of nausea...") from the library.

I mean, what's moderately nice in buildings (Hey ! Is that an extra floor with a sewing room overhanging the patio ? Cool !!) becomes horrifying in software (Hey ! Is that a reliable messaging system tightly coupled to the database layer ? Sob !!).

I'm not being totally facetious. I suspect that much of what we admire about the way building age and adapt fills carpenters, electricians, plumbers, and the guys who install heaters with dread. And that the architectural metaphors are sometimes more romantic than accurate.

-- WilliamGrosso

No architectural metaphors (beyond what is suggested by the title) are needed. Indeed, software systems are not buildings. However, there is a resonance in the comparison of architecture and software.

I live in emacs most of the day. It adapts to my needs. It is easy (for me) to configure. I find it difficult to spend much time in vi. It too can be configured, but there are some architectural foundations that affect it's adaptability. Among others: You must exit the edit mode in order to move around the file. Some people adapt to vi; some people don't.

In many respects, the adaptability of software (like emacs) is quite different than the learn-ability of buildings. How Software Systems Learn can as easily be a book that draws analogies with complex adaptive systems, instead of architecture.

-- ToddCoram

The essay "Habitability and Piecemeal Grown" in PatternsOfSoftware is a start. In rereading it, I get the feeling that Alexander would appreciate emacs.

-- DaveSmith (11/7/96)

Your comments here...

CategoryComparisons