Skip to main content

The humble parameter

As any software engineer will know, it is often easier and better to design a system that is too general for the particular task at hand and then to govern the actual behavior with a parameter. At one extreme you get sort functions with the comparator supplied as a parameter to the sort. At the other extreme you get entire policy-based frameworks where the parameters that govern the system are represented as rules.

A similar phenomenon occurs in mathematics: it is often simpler to solve a more general problem than to solve the particular problem. The more general solution is often parameterized in such a way that the particular solution falls out of the general case.

Recently, I learned of a use that Nature has put to the parameter, it seems that Finches' beaks may also be governed by one or two genes (BMP4) which show up in many wildly different animals (Finches, fish, butterflies, ...). I would suggest that what is going on here is that we have a general mechanism (the HOX genes) with a system of parameterization that is easily modified.

There seems to be a general principle at work here -- that the pattern of having a general mechanism tied to a parameter to give particular instances -- applies to many things and in many areas of the world. Perhaps this is one of those natural joints that philosophers love to carve.

Perhaps a Math grad student would be interested in designing an algebra of parameters?

Popular posts from this blog

Comments Should be Meaningless

This is something of a counterintuitive idea: Comments should be meaningless What, I hear you ask, are you talking about? Comments should communicate to the reader! At least that is the received conventional wisdom handed does over the last few centuries (decades at least). Well, certainly, if you are programming in Assembler, or C, then yes, comments should convey meaning because the programming language cannot So, conversely, as a comment on the programming language itself, anytime the programmer feels the imperative to write a meaningful comment it is because the language is not able to convey the intent of the programmer. I have already noticed that I write far fewer comments in my Java programs than in my C programs.  That is because Java is able to capture more of my meaning and comments would be superfluous. So, if a language were able to capture all of my intentions, I would never need to write a comment. Hence the title of this blog.

Minimum Viable Product

When was the last time you complained about the food in a restaurant? I thought so. Most people will complain if they are offended by the quality or service; but if the food and/or service is just underwhelming then they won't complain, they will simply not return to the restaurant. The same applies to software products, or to products of any kind. You will only get negative feedback from customers if they care enough to make the effort. In the meantime you are both losing out on opportunities and failing your core professional obligation. Minimum Viable Product speaks to a desire to make your customers design your product for you. But, to me, it represents a combination of an implicit insult and negligence. The insult is implicit in the term minimum. The image is one of laziness and contempt: just throw some mud on the wall and see if it sticks. Who cares about whether it meets a real need, or whether the customer is actually served. The negligence is more subtle but, in the end,

In Praise of Crappy Code

Not all code needs to be perfect! This is pretty heretical thinking for a software engineer. The issue is simple: how do you go about developing software for a small fixed budget. Imagine that you have $500 to implement a solution to a problem. If you spend more than that you will never recoup the extra that you spent. This comes up a lot in systems integration scenarios and also in customization efforts. Someone wants you to 'tweak' an application that they are using; you know that no-one else would want that feature and that if you spend more than what the customer will pay you will end up losing money. From the customer's perspective, the common 'time and materials' approach to quoting for software development is a nightmare. Being able to offer a fixed price contract for a task is a big benefit for the customer. But, how much do you quote for? Too much and you scare the customer away. Too little and you lose money. This is where 'crappy code' com