>not for defining what you mean by “optimal” This is my point. The path to formalization is finding the exact formal definition of the notion of what we intuit

>not for defining what you mean by “optimal” This is my point. The path to formalization is finding the exact formal definition of the notion of what we intuitively understand as "good software design patterns." For algorithm speed, we use Big Oh, for other aspects of design, I'm saying rather then create more software design metaphors a more productive use of our time is to formalize and converge on an optimum. >The real world is big and incomprehensible, and we all have to choose optimization goals based on what limited understanding we have of the big picture - also known as the “system.” There is no math formula you’ll ever be able to find that can do that for you. Yes except the computer system is an idealization of the the real world. It places the real world into a logical world of formalisms where we can eschew science and use pure logic to draw conclusions. >Figuring out what goal to optimize for is messy and uncomfortable Sure. But clearly that task is separate from design patterns. 1. The business "designs" an objective and a goal. 2. The software engineer meets that goal. I am talking about 2. not 1. >When I was in grade school, math was my favourite subject, because the answers were always right or wrong and you never had to worry if the teacher would disagree with you. It was comforting. It still is. But to grow up and have a bigger impact, we have to move on and learn about uncomfortable things too. I fail to see how discomfort or growing up have anything to do with the topic at hand. The goal is to converge on the most correct and definitive answer possible. >I can tell this bothers you a lot. It used to bother me a lot too. The reason I write articles like this is to explain the things I used to not understand, using words that I hope would have helped past-me understand sooner. Maybe it will help you too. If not, no harm done. It doesn't bother me at all. It sounds like some sort of anxiety disorder if the fuzziness of certain answers bothered you. Human brains are neural nets more similar to the probabilistic (aka fuzzy) outputs produced by our machine learning models hence most people should be more comfortable with fuzzy answers rather then pure logic. Either way, I am simply arguing a point. Your empathy is appreciated but unaccepted, this is not the goal. Again, the goal is to debate a point and find a correct answer.