4 ms·
The author inverted the way we rationaly understand reality. Instead of observing and concluding, he concluded and then retro-fitted observations - he actually
by gtsop 6y ago
The author inverted the way we rationaly understand reality. Instead of observing and concluding, he concluded and then retro-fitted observations - he actually admited this by stating his motivation was to make an anti-solid presentation for the sake of it, I'm not making this up.
Thus it is unfair for us to try and contradict his arguments, it's like talking to a conspiracy theorist, they will glue random facts trying to support a pre-decided conclusion.
Having said that, this post is very shallow. Even if there is merit to criticising the SOLID principles (and I would be very interested in such a criticism), you can't just do it an a couple of sentences.
- andybak 6y agoYour reply makes it sound like you missed the tone and context of the post. Light-hearted and intended to poke a few sacred cows... But also you seem to be denying two important possibilities: 1. Something can be both flippant and insightful. 2. A "couple of sentences" is sometimes all that is needed to trigger a light-bulb moment in someone else's head. We're not writing legal treatices here. We're trying to transfer insight from one conscious brain to another using an imperfect medium.
- gtsop 6y ago> Your reply makes it sound like you missed the tone and context of the post. Light-hearted and intended to poke a few sacred cows... If that is the context and tone, then I must admit I missed it. > But also you seem to be denying two important possibilities I don't disagree this can happen. Let's see what the future will bring. Still I feel the writer could have done a better job going into more detail.
- burnished 6y agoWhat? The post isn't a scientific article, its a persuasive piece. The hypothesis -> testing -> results model of understanding is great for problems it can be easily applied to. Design doesn't seem to be one of those.