That is exactly the wrong model. Genes are only a part of how your body is formed, and two identical genotypes will not produce identical phenotypes if the environment, especially the very very early environment of the egg/uterus, is different. That's why we can't grow babys in vats, for example, and are having massive issues even trying to grow tissues in vitro (and growing whole organs is not even a dream for now).
Consider also that your neurons, your red blood cells, your muscle cells, your liver cells, your fat cells etc all have the exact same genes. And yet, they are vastly different between each other, and you'll never see a fat cell divide into a red blood cell and a neuron, even though they are "built of the same blueprints".
> Genes are only a part of how your body is formed
And blueprints are only a part of how a house is formed. Two different teams of workers can build very different houses from the same blueprint. So what you say here sounds just like a blueprint, I don't see why that is wrong.
Edit:
> Consider also that your neurons, your red blood cells, your muscle cells, your liver cells, your fat cells etc all have the exact same genes. And yet, they are vastly different between each other, and you'll never see a fat cell divide into a red blood cell and a neuron, even though they are "built of the same blueprints".
Yes, and us programmers tend to deploy the same code to many different servers and tell some of them to be databases, others be frontend etc. It is just simpler and more robust to share code and then then just flip a few settings on startup to change what the server is.
A single blueprint describing many things that are working together and you can build any of those things is very common.
My understanding is that "outside of the genes information" is not just the color or the shape of the house, it is _essential_ instruction on how to build the house. Without it, you will not get something that qualifies as "house".
In the analogy, it is not 2 teams that build houses that are very different, it is two teams that use the same blueprint and one ends up with a house, and the other one ends up with a car. In this case, it is then correct that the "blueprint" is in fact not a blueprint.
Or another way of seeing it, you have the blueprint of the house, then you rip it apart in small pieces. Some of these pieces are the genes, other of these pieces are "out of the genes", such that if you just have the genes pieces, you just don't have enough information to build something that qualifies as a house. (funnily enough, you can say that the house builder can "fill the gaps" with his own knowledge, which would be a good example of "out of the genes" instructions)
As for your software analogy, again, some software have flags to turn between databases or frontend. But the point of the article is to explain that it is demonstrable that genes don't correspond to that: genes in itself are not enough to make blood cells by just turning a flag on or off, the same way a piece of wood is not a blueprint of both a chair and a door and that the carpenter is just a simple flag that will turn the piece of wood into a chair or a door. In this software analogy, it's like if you have one script file that just contains one basic function that neither does a database or a frontend. If you combine this script with other software pieces, you can have a database, if you combine this script with other software pieces, you can have a frontend.
Consider also that your neurons, your red blood cells, your muscle cells, your liver cells, your fat cells etc all have the exact same genes. And yet, they are vastly different between each other, and you'll never see a fat cell divide into a red blood cell and a neuron, even though they are "built of the same blueprints".