[BMCDA]

Note that code reuse is no different from common descent (of the codes.)

Yepp, however there are also different ways in which code can be reused.

For some strange reason this ominous designer only reuses code that's been inherited from previous versions but never code from other unrelated 'source code' which means that he has to "reinvent the wheel" quite often.

In other words, if you look at the work of this "designer" you get a treelike structure whereas if you examine the way humans usually design things, you get more of a spider's web.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Designed to hit 2200.

[PatrickHenry]

For some strange reason this ominous designer only reuses code that's been inherited from previous versions but never code from other unrelated 'source code' which means that he has to "reinvent the wheel" quite often. In other words, if you look at the work of this "designer" you get a treelike structure whereas if you examine the way humans usually design things, you get more of a spider's web.

[Consulting my Magic 8-Ball ...]

The answer is simple, you godless, materialist, commie, sodomite, kiddie-porn producing, lake-of-fire-bound fool. The Designer, having done His Glorious Work, then assigned further Designs to Teams of Designers, giving each such Team one of the Designed Kinds to work with. The Designer Teams obviously don't share their coding secrets with each other. You will learn these things, eventually, but it will be too late; I laugh at your fate.
</creationism mode>

[bvw]

For some strange reason this ominous designer only reuses code that's been inherited from previous versions but never code from other unrelated 'source code' which means that he has to "reinvent the wheel" quite often. In other words, if you look at the work of this "designer" you get a treelike structure whereas if you examine the way humans usually design things, you get more of a spider's web.

Plenty of biological evidence that the design of the world is trellis-like, a harmony really with plenty of interconnections.

See for one example, a "molecule of the month", Methyl Jasmonate .

[bvw]

If you look at the work with the one-track mind of a radical Marxist Darwinist, yes you'll see everthing in terms of class struggle tree-like derivation form a single ancestor. But is you liberate yourself -- tell your internal Mr. Gorbachev to "Tear down that wall!" -- from the excessive observer bias, and allow for alternate obseravtional and classificational models -- you will find that spider's web, that trellis-like structure you claim you'd want to find. I'm pretty sure. At least, it will not be "just so" a perfect tree!