4 ms·
You should probably not draw the analogy to software too far. Clearly users appreciate (and are willing to pay for) beauty and simplicity in user interface. Loo
by olavk 18y ago
You should probably not draw the analogy to software too far. Clearly users appreciate (and are willing to pay for) beauty and simplicity in user interface. Look at the iPod. But of course customers don't care if your code is minimal or a convoluted mess, as long as the app works.
20th century art is a little different because the process is part of the exposed product - the art piece here is not the last plate (which would be a bit boring on its own), but the whole sequence.
- mojuba 18y agoUnfortunately bloatware sells well, too - take Microsoft or Adobe. Why this analogy: succinctness and beauty is not appreciated in our industry, whereas it should have been a standard, like in mathematics or physics, where it is appreciated and "standardized" so to say. In math and physics you have to express youself in the most concise way. And I have never seen beauty and succinctness of the code being a requirement as a part of making software, unfortunately. Edit: "bloatware" pertains to both the code and the interface.
- maxwell 18y agoI'm no mechanical engineer, but when I pop the hood of my car, I'd rather see something minimal than a "convoluted mess." Likewise, I'd think a user would -- in theory -- like to be able to view source and see clean intelligent-looking code. Today most people seem to know/care more about cars than web sites and it's easier to tell high quality auto parts from high quality code. I suspect that will change in the future though.