4 ms·
> 36. Any run-of-the-mill engineer can design something which is elegant. A good engineer designs systems to be efficient. A great engineer designs them to be e
by idreyn 11y ago
> 36. Any run-of-the-mill engineer can design something which is elegant. A good engineer designs systems to be efficient. A great engineer designs them to be effective.
I feel like you could permute "elegant", "efficient", and "effective" in any way here and still arrive with a maxim that sounds nice but doesn't really say anything.
- sanj 11y agoI don't agree, but there is a level of interpretation at play in here: elegant: builds a system in a way that is technically satisfying efficient: builds a system in a way that uses the least resources effective: builds a system in way that best solves the problem I've built a lot of elegant systems that didn't solve the right problem but sure looked good. I've also build systems out of leftover servers and laptops that were super inexpensive. But I've learnt that there are times where spending money is the best way to build the system that the customer actually wants (and will pay for).
- nsajko 11y agoI'm pretty sure effective just means "solves the problem".
- pdx 11y ago> "elegant: builds a system in a way that is technically satisfying efficient: builds a system in a way that uses the least resources effective: builds a system in way that solves the problem" No, 'Effective' solves the problem, but not necessarily in the "best" way possible. In my opinion, the quote as stated is just wrong. Effective means "gets it done", but doesn't convey that it was done optimally. It makes much more sense to me to say... "Any run-of-the-mill engineer can design something which is effective. A good engineer designs systems to be efficient. A great engineer designs them to be elegant."
- maxxxxx 11y agoI think for elegant solutions you often have to define the problem right. From my experience often the problem is not really that clearly defined so it's hard to build an elegant solution.
- JackFr 11y agoThe way I read it, that's exactly the point. It makes much more sense to you (and me) that way but the point is our common sense about what makes an engineer great is wrong.
- kaspm 11y agoHow about "Any run-of-the-mill engineer can design something which is either elegant, efficient or effective, a good engineer designs systems to be two out of the three, a great engineer designs them to be all 3."
- bigger_cheese 11y agoEfficiency is one of the basic tenets of Engineering. Almost every problem can be reduced to "How can this system be made more efficient?" In real world systems you often have competing constraints. In construction if someone asked you to make a beam section more efficient you'd need to consider weight, cost, weld-ability, yield strength etc. All competing against each other. An effective engineer is someone who can see the whole picture of the system and where his design fits into it. Being able to make the most appropriate efficiency gains in areas where you get the greatest benefit. I've always considered a technically elegant solution to be something more novel - an approach that had never been considered before or consider and dismissed as unworkable in the past.
- hyperpallium 11y agoThey are ordered by increasing contact with reality - no elegant plan survives that. The constraints of available resources and the details of what it is actually for take their toll. Elegance requires constraints consistent and few, whereas reality is a seething mess of capricious special cases - the far end of the spectrum from pure consistent abstractions. But not only that it's easier, he also means that a solipsist chasing idealized butterflies is not an engineer. An engineer is meant to solve real, practical problems.