Hi,
Being asked, here is my point of view:
1) When you are trying something as a KISS rule, this is a must, because the
self-modifying code is not readable anymore.(What You See Is Not What You
Get). Actually, it's opposite to Rebol's prime philosophy: "the programs
shall be readable by humans".
2) Genetic and evolutionary algorithms are not as sef-modifying as it seems.
The human-written part (the part that implements a genetic algorithm) is
usually non-self-modifying. The product of this part is surely a program,
that doesn't obey any KISS rules, but that program is not written by a
programmer's hand and it's purpose is not to be readable by humans.
Ladislav
> Elan wrote:
Is there more information available in support and opposing this "old
rule"?
> In support:
> 1 When writing code to be written in ROM. It's hard to write
> self-modifying code, when the code is in read-only memory! :-)
>
> 2 What you see is what you get. Code that self-modifies is harder to
> read, and harder to modify by maintenance programmers.
>
> Against? :-)
> 1 Genetic and evolutionary code (and DNA) is self-modifying. It allows
> for very interesting programs and beings to be created.
>
> Andrew Martin
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/
> Online @ 33,600 Baud!
> -><-
>
>
