[REBOL] Re: OT, What's Native
From: ed:brittlestar at: 27-Jun-2004 10:54
(I've been away from a computer for nearly a week... hard to imagine, I
> EOC> Simplicity is subjective. It's about balance. Einstein is quoted as
> EOC> "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
> EOC> of that quote implies a warning.
GS> Again, exactly the point. Java is not as simple as possible
GS> because REBOL is simpler. And I don't think REBOL is simpler than
GS> "as simple as possible" --- maybe it could even be made simpler.
My point was mainly that simplicity may not be a significant factor as to
why a language or technology is adopted. WAIS and Gopher predated the web by
quite a few years, and they are far simpler than the web. The web was late
to the online scene, and it was much more complex & bloated than these other
technologies, yet the web quickly left them in the dust. In the US, NTSC is
a horrible & complex television standard, yet it has served a purpose for
30+ years. The human genome is said to contain 60% bloat. Nature & society
at large seems to have intricate needs and complex requirements. These
pressures often result in the success of creations that simply work, with no
particular bias toward things that work simply.
> EOC> - Things too simple are complex
> We're not trying to be "too simple". Also, simplicity is
> difficult, I agree, but you always have a price to pay in order to
> have advantages.
Perhaps the issue is intuitiveness ("the path of least surprise") rather
than simplicity. I think that's what Ruby's founder was saying. Larry Wall
also justifies some of the inconsistencies of Perl based on his assertion
that human thought/language also harbors fundamental inconsistencies.
> EOC> - Human thoughts are not simple
> That's human's fault. ;-) The good thing is that with enough
> effort you can get simpler.
It matters little if you have a language or technology that is simple,
powerful, etc. if you fail to reach a critical mass for adoption. It is
people that matter, they're the ones writing the programs. Human complexity
is not something that can be corrected; it's baiscally a fixed constraint
that all technologies accommodate to some extent.
> EOC> - Combination of simple concepts can be complex very easily
> Right. That's why OO doesn't work --- even if the classes, once
> isolated, are simple enough, just putting them together would
> result in a monster. You need an architectural view, a global
> design. Just putting things together doesn't work.
OO works very well in certain domains. It just may not work well when forced
to fit in all domains, or as a cure-all, as it is currently promoted. I
think it's fair to say that OO is over-hyped, but not to suggest that it is
failed. No form of programming--functional, declarative, imperative,
intentional, or dialects can claim to have solved the complexity problem.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to stimulate some
thought & dialogue about issues that impact perceptions and adoption of