From this analysis emerged records of 18,520 sub950millisecond crashes and spikes — far more than they, and perhaps almost anyone, expected. Equally as striking as these events’ frequency was their arrangement: While market behavior tends to rise and fall in patterns that repeat themselves, fractalstyle, in periods of days, weeks, months and years, “that only holds down to the time scale at which human stop being able to respond,” said Johnson. “The fractal gets broken.”
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/02/highspeedtrading/
A fractal is a mathematical set that has a fractal dimension that usually exceeds its topological dimension^{[1]} and may fall between the integers.^{[2]}. Fractals are typically selfsimilar patterns, where selfsimilar means they are "the same from near as from far"^{[3]} Fractals may be exactly the same at every scale, or as illustrated in Figure 1, they may be nearly the same at different scales.^{[4]}^{[5]}^{[2]}^{[6]} The definition of fractal goes beyond selfsimilarity per se to exclude trivial selfsimilarity and include the idea of a detailed pattern repeating itself.^{[2]}^{:166; 18}^{[4]}^{[7]}
As mathematical equations, fractals are usually nowhere differentiable, which means that they cannot be measured in traditional ways.^{[6]}^{[2]}^{[8]} An infinite fractal curve can be perceived of as winding through space differently from an ordinary line, still being a 1dimensional line yet having a fractal dimension indicating it also resembles a surface. ^{[2]}^{:15}^{[1]}^{:48}
The mathematical roots of the idea of fractals have been traced through a formal path of published works, starting in the 17th century with notions of recursion, then moving through increasingly rigorous mathematical treatment of the concept to the study of continuous but not differentiable functions in the 19th century, and on to the coining of the word fractal in the 20th century with a subsequent burgeoning of interest in fractals and computerbased modelling in the 21st century.^{[9]}^{[10]} The term "fractal" was first used by mathematician Benoît Mandelbrot in 1975. Mandelbrot based it on the Latin frāctus meaning "broken" or "fractured", and used it to extend the concept of theoretical fractional dimensions to geometric patterns in nature.^{[2]}^{:405}^{[7]}
There is some disagreement amongst authorities about how the concept of a fractal should be formally defined. The general consensus is that theoretical fractals are infinitely selfsimilar, iterated, and detailed mathematical constructs having fractal dimensions, of which many examples have been formulated and studied in great depth^{[2]}^{[4]}^{[5]}. Fractals are not limited to geometric patterns, but can also describe processes in time.^{[6]}^{[11]}^{[3]} Fractal patterns with various degrees of selfsimilarity have been rendered or studied in images, structures and sounds^{[12]} and found in nature^{[13]}^{[14]}^{[15]}^{[16]}^{[17]}, technology^{[18]}^{[19]}^{[20]}^{[21]}, and art^{[22]}^{[23]}^{[24]}.
Introduction
The word "fractal" often has different connotations for laypeople than mathematicians, where the layperson is more likely to be familiar with fractal art than a mathematical conception. The mathematical concept is difficult to formally define even for mathematicians, but key features can be understood with little mathematical background.
The feature of "selfsimilarity", for instance, is easily understood by analogy to zooming in with a lens or other device that zooms in on digital images to uncover finer, previously invisible, new structure. If this is done on fractals, however, no new detail appears; nothing changes and the same pattern repeats over and over, or for some fractals, nearly the same pattern reappears over and over. Selfsimilarity itself is not necessarily counterintuitive (e.g., people have pondered selfsimilarity informally such as in the infinite regress in parallel mirrors or the homunculus, the little man inside the head of the little man inside the head...). The difference for fractals is that the pattern reproduced must be detailed.^{[2]}^{:166; 18}^{[4]}^{[7]}
This idea of being detailed relates to another feature that can be understood without mathematical background: Having a fractional or fractal dimension greater than its topological dimension, for instance, refers to how a fractal scales compared to how geometric shapes are usually perceived. A regular line, for instance, is conventionally understood to be 1dimensional; if such a curve is divided into pieces each 1/3 the length of the original, there are always 3 equal pieces. In contrast, consider the curve in Figure 2. It is also 1dimensional for the same reason as the ordinary line, but it has, in addition, a fractal dimension greater than 1 because of how its detail can be measured. The fractal curve divided into parts 1/3 the length of the original line becomes 4 pieces rearranged to repeat the original detail, and this unusual relationship is the basis of its fractal dimension.
This also leads to understanding a third feature, that fractals as mathematical equations are "nowhere differentiable". In a concrete sense, this means fractals cannot be measured in traditional ways.^{[6]}^{[2]}^{[8]} To elaborate, in trying to find the length of a wavy nonfractal curve, one could find straight segments of some measuring tool small enough to lay end to end over the waves, where the pieces could get small enough to be considered to conform to the curve in the normal manner of measuring with a tape measure. But in measuring a wavy fractal curve such as the one in Figure 2, one would never find a small enough straight segment to conform to the curve, because the wavy pattern would always reappear, albeit at a smaller size, essentially pulling a little more of the tape measure into the total length measured each time one attempted to fit it tighter and tighter to the curve. This is perhaps counterintuitive, but it is how fractals behave.^{[2]}
History
Figure 2. Koch snowflake, a fractal that begins with an equilateral triangle and then replaces the middle third of every line segment with a pair of line segments that form an equilateral "bump"
The history of fractals traces a path from chiefly theoretical studies to modern applications in computer graphics, with several notable people contributing canonical fractal forms along the way.^{[9]}^{[10]} According to Pickover, the mathematics behind fractals began to take shape in the 17th century when the mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Leibniz pondered recursive selfsimilarity (although he made the mistake of thinking that only the straight line was selfsimilar in this sense).^{[25]} In his writings, Leibnitz used the term "fractional exponents", but lamented that "Geometry" did not yet know of them^{[2]}^{:405}. Indeed, according to various historical accounts, after that point few mathematicians tackled the issues and the work of those who did remained obscured largely because of resistance to such unfamiliar emerging concepts, which were sometimes referred to as mathematical "monsters".^{[10]}^{[9]}^{[8]} Thus, it was not until two centuries had passed that in 1872 Karl Weierstrass presented the first definition of a function with a graph that would today be considered fractal, having the nonintuitive property of being everywhere continuous but nowhere differentiable.^{[9]}^{:7}^{[10]} Not long after that, in 1883, Georg Cantor, who attended lectures by Weierstrass^{[10]}, published examples of subsets of the real line known as Cantor sets, which had unusual properties and are now recognized as fractals.^{[9]}^{:1124} Also in the last part of that century, Felix Klein and Henri Poincaré introduced a category of fractal that has come to be called "selfinverse" fractals.^{[2]}^{:166}
One of the next milestones came in 1904, when Helge von Koch, extending ideas of Poincaré and dissatisfied with Weierstrass's abstract and analytic definition, gave a more geometric definition including hand drawn images of a similar function, which is now called the Koch curve (see Figure 2)^{[9]}^{:25}^{[10]}. Another milestone came a decade later in 1915, when Wacław Sierpiński constructed his famous triangle then, one year later, his carpet. By 1918, two french mathematicians, Pierre Fatou and Gaston Julia, though working independently, arrived essentially simultaneously at results describing what are now seen as fractal behaviour associated with mapping complex numbers and iterative functions and leading to further ideas about attractors and repellors (i.e., points that attract or repel other points), which have become very important in the study of fractals (see Figure 3 and Figure 4).^{[10]}^{[9]}^{[6]} Very shortly after that work was submitted, by March of 1918, Felix Hausdorff expanded the definition of "dimension", significantly for the evolution of the definition of fractals, to allow for sets to have noninteger dimensions.^{[10]} The idea of selfsimilar curves was taken further by Paul Pierre Lévy, who, in his 1938 paper Plane or Space Curves and Surfaces Consisting of Parts Similar to the Whole described a new fractal curve, the Lévy C curve.^{[notes 1]}
Different researchers have postulated that without the aid of modern computer graphics, early investigators were limited to what they could depict in manual drawings, so lacked the means to visualize the beauty and appreciate some of the implications of many of the patterns they had discovered (the Julia set, for instance, could only be visualized through a few iterations as very simple drawings hardly resembling the image in Figure 3).^{[2]}^{:179}^{[8]}^{[10]} That changed, however, in the 1960s, when Benoît Mandelbrot started writing about selfsimilarity in papers such as How Long Is the Coast of Britain? Statistical SelfSimilarity and Fractional Dimension,^{[26]} which built on earlier work by Lewis Fry Richardson. In 1975^{[7]} Mandelbrot solidified hundreds of years of thought and mathematical development in coining the word "fractal" and illustrated his mathematical definition with striking computerconstructed visualizations. These images, such as of his canonical Mandelbrot set pictured in Figure 1 captured the popular imagination; many of them were based on recursion, leading to the popular meaning of the term "fractal".^{[27]} Currently, fractal studies are essentially exclusively computerbased.^{[25]}^{[9]}^{[8]}
Figure 4. A strange attractor that exhibits multifractal scaling
Characteristics
One often cited description that Mandelbrot published to describe geometric fractals is "a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reducedsize copy of the whole"^{[2]}; this is generally helpful but limited. Authorities disagree on the exact definition of fractal, but most usually elaborate on the basic ideas of selfsimilarity and an unusual relationship with the space a fractal is embedded in.^{[2]}^{[6]}^{[28]} ^{[4]}^{[3]} One point agreed on is that fractal patterns are characterized by fractal dimensions, but whereas these numbers quantify complexity (i.e., changing detail with changing scale), they neither uniquely describe nor specify details of how to construct particular fractal patterns.^{[29]} In 1975 when Mandelbrot coined the word "fractal", he did so to denote an object whose Hausdorff–Besicovitch dimension is greater than its topological dimension^{[7]}. It has been noted that this dimensional requirement is not met by fractal spacefilling curves such as the Hilbert curve.^{[notes 2]}
According to Falconer, rather than being strictly defined, fractals should, in addition to being differentiable and able to have a fractal dimension, be generally characterized by a gestalt of the following features^{[4]}:

 Selfsimilarity, which may be manifested as:

 Exact selfsimilarity: identical at all scales; e.g. Koch snowflake
 Quasi selfsimilarity: approximates the same pattern at different scales; may contain small copies of the entire fractal in distorted and degenerate forms; e.g., the Mandelbrot set's satellites are approximations of the entire set, but not exact copies, as shown in Figure 1
 Statistical selfsimilarity: repeats a pattern stochastically so numerical or statistical measures are preserved across scales; e.g., randomly generated fractals; the wellknown example of the coastline of Britain, for which one would not expect to find a segment scaled and repeated as neatly as the repeated unit that defines, for example, the Koch snowflake^{[6]}
 Qualitative selfsimilarity: as in a time series^{[11]}
 Multifractal scaling: characterized by more than one fractal dimension or scaling rule

 Fine or detailed structure at arbitrarily small scales. A consequence of this structure is fractals may have emergent properties^{[30]} (related to the next criterion in this list).

 Irregularity locally and globally that is not easily described in traditional Euclidean geometric language. For images of fractal patterns, this has been expressed by phrases such as "smoothly piling up surfaces" and "swirls upon swirls"^{[1]}.

 Simple and "perhaps recursive" definitions see Common techniques for generating fractals
As a group, these criteria form guidelines for excluding certain cases, such as those that may be selfsimilar without having other typically fractal features. A straight line, for instance, is selfsimilar but not fractal because it lacks detail, is easily described in Euclidean language, has the same Hausdorff dimension as topological dimension, and is fully defined without a need for recursion.^{[6]}^{[2]}
Common techniques for generating fractals
Figure 5. Selfsimilar branching pattern modeled in silico using Lsystems principles^{[17]}

 Iterated function systems – use fixed geometric replacement rules; may be stochastic or deterministic^{[31]}; e.g., Koch snowflake, Cantor set, Sierpinski carpet, Sierpinski gasket, Peano curve, HarterHeighway dragon curve, TSquare, Menger sponge

 Strange attractors – use iterations of a map or solutions of a system of initialvalue differential equations that exhibit chaos (e.g., see multifractal image)

 Lsystems  use string rewriting; may resemble branching patterns, such as in plants, biological cells (e.g., neurons and immune system cells^{[17]}), blood vessels, pulmonary structure^{[32]}, etc. (e.g., see Figure 5) or turtle graphics patterns such as spacefilling curves and tilings

 Escapetime fractals – use a formula or recurrence relation at each point in a space (such as the complex plane); usually quasiselfsimilar; also known as "orbit" fractals; e.g., the Mandelbrot set, Julia set, Burning Ship fractal, Nova fractal and Lyapunov fractal. The 2d vector fields that are generated by one or two iterations of escapetime formulae also give rise to a fractal form when points (or pixel data) are passed through this field repeatedly.

 Random fractals – use stochastic rules; e.g., Lévy flight, percolation clusters, self avoiding walks, fractal landscapes, trajectories of Brownian motion and the Brownian tree (i.e., dendritic fractals generated by modeling diffusionlimited aggregation or reactionlimited aggregation clusters).^{[6]}
Simulated fractals
Fractal patterns have been modeled extensively, albeit within a range of scales rather than infinitely, owing to the practical limits of physical time and space. Models may simulate theoretical fractals or natural phenomena with fractal features. The outputs of the modelling process may be highly artistic renderings, outputs for investigation, or benchmarks for fractal analysis. Some specific applications of fractals to technology are listed elsewhere. Images and other outputs of modelling are normally referred to as being "fractals" even if they do not have strictly fractal characteristics, such as when it is possible to zoom into a region of the fractal image that does not exhibit any fractal properties. Also, these may include calculation or display artifacts which are not characteristics of true fractals.
Modeled fractals may be sounds^{[12]}, digital images, electrochemical patterns, circadian rhythms^{[33]}, etc. Fractal patterns have been reconstructed in physical 3dimensional space^{[20]}^{:10} and virtually, often called "in silico" modeling^{[32]}. Models of fractals are generally created using fractalgenerating software that implements techniques such as those outlined above.^{[20]}^{[6]}^{[11]} As one illustration, trees, ferns, cells of the nervous system^{[17]}, blood and lung vasculature,^{[32]} and other branching patterns in nature can be modeled on a computer by using recursive algorithms and Lsystems techniques^{[17]}. The recursive nature of some patterns is obvious in certain examples—a branch from a tree or a frond from a fern is a miniature replica of the whole: not identical, but similar in nature. Similarly, random fractals have been used to describe/create many highly irregular realworld objects. A limitation of modeling fractals is that resemblance of a fractal model to a natural phenomenon does not prove that the phenomenon being modeled is formed by a process similar to the modeling algorithm.
Natural phenomena with fractal features
Approximate fractals found in nature display selfsimilarity over extended, but finite, scale ranges. The connection between fractals and leaves, for instance, is currently being used to determine how much carbon is contained in trees.^{[34]}
Examples of phenomena known or anticipated to have fractal features are listed below:
 clouds
 river networks
 fault lines
 mountain ranges
 craters
 lightning bolts
 coastlines
 snow flakes
 various vegetables (cauliflower and broccoli)
 animal coloration patterns.
 heart rates^{[13]}
 heartbeat^{[14]}
 earthquakes^{[21]}^{[35]}
 snow flakes^{[36]}
 crystals^{[37]}
 blood vessels and pulmonary vessels^{[32]},
 ocean waves^{[38]}
 DNA
In creative works
A fractal that models the surface of a mountain (animation)
Further information: Fractal art
Fractal patterns have been found in the paintings of American artist Jackson Pollock. While Pollock's paintings appear to be composed of chaotic dripping and splattering, computer analysis has found fractal patterns in his work.^{[24]}
Decalcomania, a technique used by artists such as Max Ernst, can produce fractallike patterns.^{[39]} It involves pressing paint between two surfaces and pulling them apart.
Cyberneticist Ron Eglash has suggested that fractallike structures are prevalent in African art and architecture. Circular houses appear in circles of circles, rectangular houses in rectangles of rectangles, and so on. Such scaling patterns can also be found in African textiles, sculpture, and even cornrow hairstyles.^{[23]}^{[40]}
In a 1996 interview with Michael Silverblatt, David Foster Wallace admitted that the structure of the first draft of Infinite Jest he gave to his editor Michael Pietsch was inspired by fractals, specifically the Sierpinski triangle (aka Sierpinski gasket) but that the edited novel is "more like a lopsided Sierpinsky Gasket".^{[22]}
Applications in technology
Main article: Fractal analysis
 fractal antennas^{[41]}
 digital imaging
 urban growth^{[42]}^{[43]}
 Classification of histopathology slides
 Fractal landscape or Coastline complexity
 Enzyme/enzymology (MichaelisMenten kinetics)
 Generation of new music
 Signal and image compression
 Creation of digital photographic enlargements
 Seismology
 Fractal in soil mechanics
 Computer and video game design
 computer graphics
 organic environments
 procedural generation
 Fractography and fracture mechanics
 Small angle scattering theory of fractally rough systems
 Tshirts and other fashion
 Generation of patterns for camouflage, such as MARPAT
 Digital sundial
 Technical analysis of price series
 Fractals in networks
 medicine^{[20]}
 neuroscience^{[16]}^{[15]}
 diagnostic imaging^{[19]}
 pathology^{[44]}^{[45]}
 geology^{[46]}
 geography^{[47]}
 archaeology^{[48]}^{[49]}
 soil mechanics^{[18]}
 seismology^{[21]}
 search and rescue^{[50]}
 technical analysis^{[51]}
See also
 Banach fixed point theorem
 Bifurcation theory
 Box counting
 Butterfly effect
 Complexity
 Constructal theory
 Cymatics
 Diamondsquare algorithm
 Droste effect
 Feigenbaum function
 Fractal compression
 Fractal cosmology
 Fractal networks
 Fractint
 Fracton
 Golden ratio
 Graftal
 Greeble
 Lacunarity
 List of fractals by Hausdorff dimension
 Publications in fractal geometry
 Mandelbulb
 Multifractal system
 Newton fractal
 Percolation
 Power law
 Random walk
 Sacred geometry
 Self avoiding walk
 Selfreference
 Strange loop
 Turbulence
Fractalgenerating programs
There are many fractal generating programs available, both free and commercial. Some of the fractal generating programs include:
 Apophysis  open source software for Microsoft Windows based systems
 Electric Sheep  open source distributed computing software
 Fractint  freeware with available source code
 Sterling  Freeware software for Microsoft Windows based systems
 SpangFract  For Mac OS
 Ultra Fractal  A proprietary fractal generator for Microsoft Windows based systems
 XaoS  A cross platform open source realtime fractal zooming program
Most of the above programs make twodimensional fractals, with a few creating threedimensional fractal objects, such as a Quaternion. A specific type of threedimensional fractal, called mandelbulbs, was introduced in 2009.
 art
 Beno
 Britain
 created using fractalgenerating software
 David Foster Wallace
 Felix Hausdorff
 Felix Klein
 Fractal
 Fractal antenna
 fractals
 Fractals
 Gaston Julia
 Georg Cantor
 Gottfried Leibniz
 Hausdorff dimension
 Henri Poincar
 How Long Is the Coast of Britain? Statistical SelfSimilarity and Fractional Dimension
 Index of fractalrelated articles
 Jackson Pollock
 Koch snowflake
 Lsystem
 Lewis Fry Richardson
 Mandelbrot set
 Mathematics
 Max Ernst
 Michael Pietsch
 Michael Silverblatt
 modeling algorithm
 paint
 Pattern
 Paul Pierre
 Physics
 Pierre Fatou
 pressing paint
 recursive algorithms
 Ron Eglash
 Selfsimilarity
 Weierstrass function
Organizational antipatterns
 Analysis paralysis: Devoting disproportionate effort to the analysis phase of a project
 Cash cow: A profitable legacy product that often leads to complacency about new products
 Design by committee: The result of having many contributors to a design, but no unifying vision
 Escalation of commitment: Failing to revoke a decision when it proves wrong
 Management by perkele: Authoritarian style of management with no tolerance of dissent
 Management by objectives: Management by numbers, focus exclusively on quantitative management criteria, when these are nonessential or cost too much to acquire.
 Moral hazard: Insulating a decisionmaker from the consequences of his or her decision
 Mushroom management: Keeping employees uninformed and misinformed; employees are described as being kept in the dark and fed manure, left to stew, and finally canned.
 Stovepipe or Silos: A structure that supports mostly updown flow of data but inhibits cross organizational communication
 Vendor lockin: Making a system excessively dependent on an externally supplied component^{[4]}
Project management antipatterns
 Avalanche: An inappropriate mashup of the Waterfall model and Agile Development techniques
 Death march: Everyone knows that the project is going to be a disaster – except the CEO – so the truth is hidden to prevent immediate cancellation of the project  (although the CEO often knows and does it anyway to maximize profit). However, the truth remains hidden and the project is artificially kept alive until the Day Zero finally comes ("Big Bang"). Alternative definition: Employees are pressured to work late nights and weekends on a project with an unreasonable deadline.
 Groupthink: During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking
 Overengineering: Spending resources making a project more robust and complex than is needed
 Smoke and mirrors: Demonstrating unimplemented functions as if they were already implemented
 Software bloat: Allowing successive versions of a system to demand ever more resources
 Waterfall model: An older method of software development that inadequately deals with unanticipated change
Analysis antipatterns
 Bystander apathy: When a requirement or design decision is wrong, but the people who notice this do nothing because it affects a larger number of people
Software design antipatterns
 Abstraction inversion: Not exposing implemented functionality required by users, so that they reimplement it using higher level functions
 Ambiguous viewpoint: Presenting a model (usually Objectoriented analysis and design (OOAD)) without specifying its viewpoint
 Big ball of mud: A system with no recognizable structure
 DatabaseasIPC: Using a database as the message queue for routine interprocess communication where a much more lightweight mechanism would be suitable
 Gold plating: Continuing to work on a task or project well past the point at which extra effort is adding value
 Innerplatform effect: A system so customizable as to become a poor replica of the software development platform
 Input kludge: Failing to specify and implement the handling of possibly invalid input
 Interface bloat: Making an interface so powerful that it is extremely difficult to implement
 Magic pushbutton: Coding implementation logic directly within interface code, without using abstraction
 Race hazard: Failing to see the consequence of different orders of events
 Stovepipe system: A barely maintainable assemblage of illrelated components
Objectoriented design antipatterns
 Anemic Domain Model: The use of domain model without any business logic. The domain model's objects cannot guarantee their correctness at any moment, because their validation and mutation logic is placed somewhere outside (most likely in multiple places).
 BaseBean: Inheriting functionality from a utility class rather than delegating to it
 Call super: Requiring subclasses to call a superclass's overridden method
 Circleellipse problem: Subtyping variabletypes on the basis of valuesubtypes
 Circular dependency: Introducing unnecessary direct or indirect mutual dependencies between objects or software modules
 Constant interface: Using interfaces to define constants
 God object: Concentrating too many functions in a single part of the design (class)
 Object cesspool: Reusing objects whose state does not conform to the (possibly implicit) contract for reuse
 Object orgy: Failing to properly encapsulate objects permitting unrestricted access to their internals
 Poltergeists: Objects whose sole purpose is to pass information to another object
 Sequential coupling: A class that requires its methods to be called in a particular order
 Yoyo problem: A structure (e.g., of inheritance) that is hard to understand due to excessive fragmentation
Programming antipatterns
 Accidental complexity: Introducing unnecessary complexity into a solution
 Action at a distance: Unexpected interaction between widely separated parts of a system
 Blind faith: Lack of checking of (a) the correctness of a bug fix or (b) the result of a subroutine
 Boat anchor: Retaining a part of a system that no longer has any use
 Busy waiting: Consuming CPU while waiting for something to happen, usually by repeated checking instead of messaging
 Caching failure: Forgetting to reset an error flag when an error has been corrected
 Cargo cult programming: Using patterns and methods without understanding why
 Coding by exception: Adding new code to handle each special case as it is recognized
 Error hiding: Catching an error message before it can be shown to the user and either showing nothing or showing a meaningless message
 Hard code: Embedding assumptions about the environment of a system in its implementation
 Lava flow: Retaining undesirable (redundant or lowquality) code because removing it is too expensive or has unpredictable consequences^{[5]}^{[6]}
 Loopswitch sequence: Encoding a set of sequential steps using a switch within a loop statement
 Magic numbers: Including unexplained numbers in algorithms
 Magic strings: Including literal strings in code, for comparisons, as event types etc.
 Repeating yourself: Writing code which contains repetitive patterns and substrings over again; avoid with once and only once (abstraction principle)
 Soft code: Storing business logic in configuration files rather than source code^{[7]}
 Spaghetti code: Programs whose structure is barely comprehensible, especially because of misuse of code structures
 Shotgun surgery: Developer adds features to an application codebase which span a multiplicity of implementors or implementations in a single change.
Methodological antipatterns
 Copy and paste programming: Copying (and modifying) existing code rather than creating generic solutions
 Golden hammer: Assuming that a favorite solution is universally applicable (See: Silver Bullet)
 Improbability factor: Assuming that it is improbable that a known error will occur
 Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: The tendency towards reinventing the wheel (Failing to adopt an existing, adequate solution)
 Premature optimization: Coding earlyon for perceived efficiency, sacrificing good design, maintainability, and sometimes even realworld efficiency
 Programming by permutation (or "programming by accident"): Trying to approach a solution by successively modifying the code to see if it works
 Reinventing the square wheel: Failing to adopt an existing solution and instead adopting a custom solution which performs much worse than the existing one
 Silver bullet: Assuming that a favorite technical solution can solve a larger process or problem
 Tester Driven Development: Software projects in which new requirements are specified in bug reports
Configuration management antipatterns
 Dependency hell: Problems with versions of required products
 DLL hell: Inadequate management of dynamiclink libraries (DLLs), specifically on Microsoft Windows
 Extension conflict: Problems with different extensions to preMac OS X versions of the Mac OS attempting to patch the same parts of the operating system
 JAR hell: Overutilization of the multiple JAR files, usually causing versioning and location problems because of misunderstanding of the Java class loading model
See also
 Code smell – symptom of unsound programming
 List of software development philosophies – approaches, styles, maxims and philosophies for software development
 Software Peter principle
 Capability Immaturity Model
 ISO 29110: Software Life Cycle Profiles and Guidelines for Very Small Entities (VSEs)
The MVC remains one of the most valuable structures for understanding and using Design Patterns, and yet I believe it to be misunderstood and misused on just about every level imaginable. In the first chapter of their book, the Gang of Four spend a mere two pages describing MVC in order to help readers understand [...]
Related posts:
 ActionScript
 ActionScript
 ASP.NET MVC Framework
 Cairngorm
 Computing
 Design Patterns
 explanatory tool
 Gamma
 Graphical Editing Framework
 Java
 Java
 limited tool
 Model View Command
 Model–view–controller
 MVC
 objectoriented software
 Observer pattern
 Pattern
 PureMVC
 Reusable ObjectOriented Software
 Software architecture
 Software design patterns
 Software engineering
 specific applications
 the Freeman
 triad
 True Value
 UIs
 View