3 ms·
At root, philosophically (as opposed to practically), are you not describing this: A Pattern Language, Christoper Alexander, 1977, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wi
by Kaibeezy 8y ago
At root, philosophically (as opposed to practically), are you not describing this: A Pattern Language, Christoper Alexander, 1977, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language
Yes, it’s not as blocky and snap-together as Lego, but I always considered that an artifact of the need for adaptability/evolution, flexibility to allow things to fit into environments of random complexity, and accommodating a wide array of human preferences.
“Programming”, like architecture/planning of the physical environment, seems to have turned out to need this degree of granularity, nearly indistinguishable from an organic system.
- Mad_Fury 8y agoThanks, I will take a look at it :), please read the bellow comment.
- Mad_Fury 8y agoSeems like a great read, thanks :), book on the way...
- Kaibeezy 8y agoGood call. I’d put it in a top 100, even top 10, for post-zombie/Trumplightenment civilization rebuild.
- Mad_Fury 8y agoPlease do share any other reads :), thanks
- poulsbohemian 8y agoIt really helps to read both A Pattern Language and The Timeless Way of Building together, so you get a complete picture of Alexander's thoughts.
- Kaibeezy 8y agoOK. It doesn’t really go to your original post, but I often also point people to The Design of Everyday Things, Donald Norman, 1988, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Design_of_Everyday_Things https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Design_of_Everyday_Thing... Basic insight into the question of: “What makes a good tool?” Maybe for your purposes, the angle is: “When is a simplified tool more useful than a complex one?” Or: “How can I add complexity to a tool while preserving its usefulness?”