Recent Posts5026
Developer's Corner / Re: Web Debate: Give Us Simplicity So We Can Ignore You
« Last post by Stoic Joker on October 24, 2010, 02:57 PM »Okay, let us suffice as to say that debating analogies isn't getting anywhere and see about getting back to our original "issue"...That being my assertion that form follows function.
While there are many types of items, I'm going to focus on only two:
1. Items/devices that perform or make easier a specific task (tools/machinery/conveyances).
2. Items/decorations who's purpose is primarily aesthetic (Painting/sculpture/music).
I'm going to take a short side trip here to thank wraith808 for clarifying something of a distinction that seems to be mudding things a bit. When I say function, I mean does it - by way of its purpose for existing - correctly perform the task it was designed to accomplish. This is as apposed to it being functional in regard to it simplicity of design/usage (i.e. Is its usage really as bloody obvious as the designer intended it to be.) Given that I was tyeing simplicity to elegance - which tracks well depending on how you think about it - primarily because simpler designs (with less moving parts) tend to fail less often than complex mechanisms that require constant adjustment of exacting tolerances. As an example I'll use the (original) Trojan Horse. In essence it was an idiot simple idea (hide a bunch of guys in a statue). However given the time and complexity of the siege strategies of the day ... it was also quite an elegant solution to a rather complicated problem.
Scampering back on point... Parachutes. Will the brightly colored festive patterns really be a sufficient consolation when one is hurtling toward the earth at terminal velocity? Or perhaps should a bit more time have been spent on making sure it actually worked?
Lifeboats. The name kind of implies a sense of urgency don't you think? Ship is sinking, which one do you want? The one that functions well and will float long enough to get you to shore? Or the pretty one?
Internal combustion Engines. Specifically air cooled ones (which I've worked with extensively). Air cooled internal combustion engines work/function quite well. Chromed air cooled internal combustion engines look really sharp (granted depending on who you ask)...but tend to overheat because the chrome hampers the engines ability to dissipate heat properly. Now overheated air cooled engines tend to seize (lockup permanently) and leave you stranded. You're about to cross 500 miles of desert, do you want the nice pretty chrome engine?
Here's another fun example...which occupied most of my time this very afternoon. Aesthetically (e.g. form) The large majestic oak tree in my backyard is a true thing of beauty...but then again I like trees. However... Functionally, given that it is right next to, and therefore hangs directly over my swimming pool it is also incredibly stupid. Which is why I spent the bulk of my afternoon dredging 8 bags of acorns out of said pool.
Are we noticing a trend yet?
One more for the road.... Here's a device (conveyance actually) that was a large canvas bag coated/sealed with a "mildly explosive" compound, and filled with hydrogen. Granted the Hindenburg was a beautiful ship...
So, in closing, when your life actually depends on something working correctly the first time, which is "better", the one that was designed to work reliably? or the one that looks good? ...Because it is just so cool to be a sexy corpse.
I did however want to respond to this:
If we're going to be fair both are correct...(mind you I like one better because it makes for shorter discussions)... depending on where in the (life cycle of a theory) time line one is at. Definition one is theory/axiom and based on direct observation and reproducible results. Definition two, is more popular theory/things that need to be more fully tested like (winding back through history a bit) the earth is flat & bumble bees can't fly. In the 1970's (aviation theory) definition one stated unequivocally that bumble bees could not fly...but the little bastards just would not cooperate and stay on the ground... IIRC "they" did finally figure out which loophole the bees were using sometime in the 90's ... but it took a bit of two (who ya gonna believe your lying eyes or the facts right here on paper) to get to one.
While there are many types of items, I'm going to focus on only two:
1. Items/devices that perform or make easier a specific task (tools/machinery/conveyances).
2. Items/decorations who's purpose is primarily aesthetic (Painting/sculpture/music).
I'm going to take a short side trip here to thank wraith808 for clarifying something of a distinction that seems to be mudding things a bit. When I say function, I mean does it - by way of its purpose for existing - correctly perform the task it was designed to accomplish. This is as apposed to it being functional in regard to it simplicity of design/usage (i.e. Is its usage really as bloody obvious as the designer intended it to be.) Given that I was tyeing simplicity to elegance - which tracks well depending on how you think about it - primarily because simpler designs (with less moving parts) tend to fail less often than complex mechanisms that require constant adjustment of exacting tolerances. As an example I'll use the (original) Trojan Horse. In essence it was an idiot simple idea (hide a bunch of guys in a statue). However given the time and complexity of the siege strategies of the day ... it was also quite an elegant solution to a rather complicated problem.
Scampering back on point... Parachutes. Will the brightly colored festive patterns really be a sufficient consolation when one is hurtling toward the earth at terminal velocity? Or perhaps should a bit more time have been spent on making sure it actually worked?
Lifeboats. The name kind of implies a sense of urgency don't you think? Ship is sinking, which one do you want? The one that functions well and will float long enough to get you to shore? Or the pretty one?
Internal combustion Engines. Specifically air cooled ones (which I've worked with extensively). Air cooled internal combustion engines work/function quite well. Chromed air cooled internal combustion engines look really sharp (granted depending on who you ask)...but tend to overheat because the chrome hampers the engines ability to dissipate heat properly. Now overheated air cooled engines tend to seize (lockup permanently) and leave you stranded. You're about to cross 500 miles of desert, do you want the nice pretty chrome engine?
Here's another fun example...which occupied most of my time this very afternoon. Aesthetically (e.g. form) The large majestic oak tree in my backyard is a true thing of beauty...but then again I like trees. However... Functionally, given that it is right next to, and therefore hangs directly over my swimming pool it is also incredibly stupid. Which is why I spent the bulk of my afternoon dredging 8 bags of acorns out of said pool.
Are we noticing a trend yet?
One more for the road.... Here's a device (conveyance actually) that was a large canvas bag coated/sealed with a "mildly explosive" compound, and filled with hydrogen. Granted the Hindenburg was a beautiful ship...
So, in closing, when your life actually depends on something working correctly the first time, which is "better", the one that was designed to work reliably? or the one that looks good? ...Because it is just so cool to be a sexy corpse.
I did however want to respond to this:
Theory vs practice ? Maybe.... depending on your definition of what a "theory" is, of course. For me it's more "A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena". I imagine you meant "A belief that can guide behavior" or "speculation" ?-Armando (October 23, 2010, 05:01 PM)
If we're going to be fair both are correct...(mind you I like one better because it makes for shorter discussions)... depending on where in the (life cycle of a theory) time line one is at. Definition one is theory/axiom and based on direct observation and reproducible results. Definition two, is more popular theory/things that need to be more fully tested like (winding back through history a bit) the earth is flat & bumble bees can't fly. In the 1970's (aviation theory) definition one stated unequivocally that bumble bees could not fly...but the little bastards just would not cooperate and stay on the ground...
IIRC "they" did finally figure out which loophole the bees were using sometime in the 90's ... but it took a bit of two (who ya gonna believe your lying eyes or the facts right here on paper) to get to one.
