Continuing the discussion from The Bad Design Argument:
Not really. What I am saying is that computer code is written in a programming language that is designed by and understandable (hopefully) by humans. For example, computer code can be written in Python, C, C++, and a whole range of other languages. These languages are not very much at all like DNA. On both qualitative and quantitative levels, computer code is not a good analogy to DNA.
However, we can use computer code to build objects that behave much like DNA, and see how these DNA-mimicking objects evolve over time, following well established rules like neutral evolution. Watching how these DNA-objects evolve in specific scenarios is an example of a “simulation”. A well designed simulation can both confirm our understanding of how evolution of DNA happens, or even uncover surprising things that arise as they evolve. It is common to develop simplified “closed form” equations to approximate what a simulation will produce, and then run simulations to determine if those equations hold.
Carefully constructed simulations can help us answer focused and well-chosen questions. That is part of the foundation of several fields of study, including population genetics.
Simulations of evolution, however, are only going to be as good as the correctness of how DNA behaves in the program, the simplifications made to enable to the simulation to run fast, and the questions being asked of the simulation (which have to be appropriate to the accuracy and simplifications of the simulation).
So we need to make a distinction between computer programs (written, for example, in Python), and computer simulations, which are run by computer programs (which are written to mimic the behavior of other things).
The program is not good analogy to DNA, but some of the simulations that a program can run might be a good analogy, at least in some ways.