[REBOL] Re: OT, What's Native
From: g::santilli::tiscalinet::it at: 28-Jun-2004 15:31
Hi Ed,
On Sunday, June 27, 2004, 4:54:31 PM, you wrote:
EOC> My point was mainly that simplicity may not be a significant factor as to
EOC> why a language or technology is adopted.
Of course --- on the contrary, simplicity goes against wide
adoption, because it's very uncommon, and often requires more
effort.
EOC> The human genome is said to contain 60% bloat.
Actually, most recent studies show that what was considered to be
bloat
(the so called "junk DNA") could actually be the most
important part of it. I.e. not only the coding parts (the ones
which express a protein) are important. For example some parts
express iRNA that is crucial in the life as much as the proteins
themselves, and other parts contribute to the regulation of the
expressions of genes.
Anyway, the human genome is the result of evolution, not design.
If we're going to rule out design from programming then yeah,
maybe we can just let our programs evolve and forget about
simplicity.
EOC> Nature & society
EOC> at large seems to have intricate needs and complex requirements. These
EOC> pressures often result in the success of creations that simply work, with no
EOC> particular bias toward things that work simply.
Fine, but between two things that work, I choose the simpler one.
Programming is a form of art, not industry; I use over-complicated
programs too, because they (almost) work and I have no
alternative; yet I think that they are really badly designed. If I
am to design something, I just don't want it to be badly designed,
at least on my eyes. :)
EOC> Perhaps the issue is intuitiveness ("the path of least surprise") rather
EOC> than simplicity. I think that's what Ruby's founder was saying. Larry Wall
EOC> also justifies some of the inconsistencies of Perl based on his assertion
EOC> that human thought/language also harbors fundamental inconsistencies.
If we're talking about making something widely accepted, surely.
Though it's surprise that will be giving you knowledge. :) I don't
think you can really learn from "the path of least surprise". A
good design is always surprising (positively, hopefully :), like a
great painting or the building of a great architect.
EOC> It matters little if you have a language or technology that is simple,
EOC> powerful, etc. if you fail to reach a critical mass for adoption. It is
EOC> people that matter, they're the ones writing the programs. Human complexity
EOC> is not something that can be corrected; it's baiscally a fixed constraint
EOC> that all technologies accommodate to some extent.
It matters to me; I'm not saying that I don't care about REBOL
being successful, however if making it successful would make it
uninteresting to me, then why would I want it?
Is a poet less important if it is not successful amongst the mass?
EOC> OO works very well in certain domains. It just may not work well when forced
EOC> to fit in all domains, or as a cure-all, as it is currently promoted. I
EOC> think it's fair to say that OO is over-hyped, but not to suggest that it is
EOC> failed.
Failed as a cure-all; but I agree the ideas are good (polymorphism
especially IMHO), though it is not that much better than any other
paradigm.
EOC> No form of programming--functional, declarative, imperative,
EOC> intentional, or dialects can claim to have solved the complexity problem.
Of course it hasn't --- a paradigm can't. Solving the problem of
complexity requires thinking, not new paradigms.
EOC> I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to stimulate some
EOC> thought & dialogue about issues that impact perceptions and adoption of
EOC> REBOL.
Me too. :)
Regards,
Gabriele.
--
Gabriele Santilli <[g--santilli--tiscalinet--it]> -- REBOL Programmer
Amiga Group Italia sez. L'Aquila --- SOON: http://www.rebol.it/
