[jongjong]

Well still, one could argue that if (hypothetically) scientists had been smarter than they were, there would have been less back-and-forth. There may have been less collective effort wasted on scientific dead-ends. It would have been a good thing.

I think where the comparison fails is that science is far more tolerant of alternative theories than coding is. Coding is almost a mono-culture. The choice of tools and acceptable approaches is really very limited and there isn't much tolerance for alternatives; this is especially problematic given the fact that none of these tools and techniques are backed by math. Coding tools and techniques are backed entirely by subjective opinions concerning productivity across a highly inconsistent range of environments and these opinions are riddled with biases and conflicting business interests.

Programming ideology is built on flaky foundations (vague, inconsistent and biased beliefs about efficiency and maintainability) and yet there is intolerance towards alternatives. This is at odds with science which is generally built on far stronger foundations supported by mathematics and yet is more tolerant of alternative theories.