That's intentional. So if one part of the code suffers a random mutation and spontaneously develops a bug, the redundant code can still ensure the proper functioning of the program while the bug gets fixed.
Just take care if you merge two branches that contain the same bug; you might end up with a program without functional redundant code. That's why you should never merge closely related branches.
It's how isoforms functions with different signatures evolve. As long as it isn't harmful it tends to stick around. Then the different code may develop adaptations which fit it into a niche if it is a selective advantage for the organism code base.
Depends on what you are developing & the language used but a simpler codebase is the definition of security/privacy by design that's how you get more power.
That's intentional. So if one part of the code suffers a random mutation and spontaneously develops a bug, the redundant code can still ensure the proper functioning of the program while the bug gets fixed.
Just take care if you merge two branches that contain the same bug; you might end up with a program without functional redundant code. That's why you should never merge closely related branches.
It's how
isoformsfunctions with different signatures evolve. As long as it isn't harmful it tends to stick around. Then the different code may develop adaptations which fit it into a niche if it is a selective advantage for theorganismcode base.didnt expect to see neuro here
Applying the (DRY) Do Repeat Yourself principle.
it's... interlocked safety, shut up.
Depends on what you are developing & the language used but a simpler codebase is the definition of security/privacy by design that's how you get more power.
As an AI herself, she's right.