A commonly expressed idea in biology is that DNA contains a program or a set of instructions for building a complex multicellular organism.  A number of philosophers and biologists have argued that this analogy is mistaken, misleading, and that such talk should be replaced or reinterpreted.  In this paper, I have two aims.  First, to clarify when this analogy is best suited to provide some insight.  Much of the literature assumes that idea of a program is aimed at solely capturing something about the process of development.  I argue that the program analogy is at it most compelling when we consider how development changes over time -- that is, when we focus on what makes something programmable, rather than what makes it a program.  Second, to overturn some of the received wisdom about what programs are actually like.  Many of the common objections to the program analogy rest on ideas that fail to reflect the architecture of most modern programs.  In particular, I focus on how the flow of control works in most programs that we use, and show that it has much in common with gene regulation.  I'll draw these two threads together, show why the analogy is worthwhile, and outline some limitations.