I didn't expect, the answer is.. , :-)

Only time for a few notes:

On Friday 24 September 2004 06:23, Graham wrote:
> Oscar Rambla wrote:
> >In his theory affirms that simple organisms are more symmetric than
> > complex organisms. Complex organisms maintains symmetry in what is
> > necessary for movement, attraction or other conditionants while tend to
> > become
> >more assymmetric in other aspects to improve its effectiveness.
>
> When programming (esp. when programming in an 'organic' manner, without
> reams of specifications that have been hammered out by someone else), we
> tend to look for the essence of the system we're trying to build, and
> focus on that in our code. We're looking for simplicity -- the "do one
> thing, and do it well" motivation that is so apparent, for example, in
> the standard Unix command line tools.
>
User and fan of them, too. Each problem, each solution. Then, maybe the
complexity comes when we want them to cooperate?

> Pure systems must adapt to meet human needs, however, and must fit the
> problem at hand, not hold tightly to abstract concepts like simplicity,
> purity, even efficiency. And since people are asymmetric by nature (!),
> perhaps it follows that systems with which people interact must be
> antrhopomorphized, and must grow irregular bumps, extra handles and dark
> corners.

On the other hand, I think that people feel  attraction and also more
comfortable with symmetric forms even  when these share few things with that
of  the solution we have adopted.


On Friday 24 September 2004 06:55, Toni wrote:

> did he talk about specialization?
>

Probably yes, but I can't remember anything in particular.

> in general, i find the whole notions of characteristics of systems, and
> the tendency to try to transfer lessons / observations from totally
> different areas to others .. well, interesting / problematic. when was
> trying to do some basic research (on designing web services), looked into
> the literature on biologically motivated designs in information systems,
> but am not yet sure what to think of it. one line of work i found
> particularily interesting there is Luis Rocha's,
> http://informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/lr_form.html
>
> one way is to look from the typical/classical object-oriented viewpoint.
> there the thing that has been troubling me are the origins of the notions
> of inheritance / specialization, with the obvious terminological
> connections to biology. does somebody know where that comes from? talking
> with some humanists, they've pointed out that it does not necessarily come
> from biology, but is just the common way to classify thing in general
> (more related to philosophy).  last spring, i finally got to read some of
> the original Simula articles from the '60s, and while that was interesting
> for other reasons it didn't really give too much insight on this.
>

Interesting matter. I'll take a look on this.
I remember have read something, not much, about it in Meyer's books.

On Friday 24 September 2004 08:10, Martin Maney wrote:
> Oh, there are moments like that, when I think I've found the unifying
> principle that will collapse at least one large molehill of
> complications.  It's not so much that I'm wrong as that once the hill
> has been flattened, lesser irregularities that hadn't been so
> noticeable stand out much more clearly.  And every now and then the
> molehill does turn out to have been a thin layer of dirt over an
> intrusion of solid stone.  :-/

Impressed. Sounds like realistic poetry of XXI'th to me.

On Friday 24 September 2004 06:23, Graham wrote:
>
> Thanks, Oscar, for starting my Friday on a lateral note -- an enjoyable
> diversion. :-)
>

Also enjoyed. Thank you  for finishing mine. :-)

-Oscar