Hi Kingsley, You are of course right - I assume that, despite the terminological mess I introduced, you agree with my line of argument; I fully acknowledge it is heavily inspired by our San Jose sushi talk ;-) Martin Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Martin, > > [SNIP] >> >> >> As Kingsley said - deceptively simple solutions are cheap in the >> beginning but can be pretty costly in the long run. > I meant: "Deceptively Simple" is good. While "Simply Simple" is bad > due to inherent architectural myopia obscured by initial illusion of > cheapness etc.. >> >> What made the Web so powerful is that its Architecture is extremely >> well-thought underneath the first cover of simplicity. > That's what I meant by: "Deceptively Simple", architectural apex is > narrow (simple) while the base is broad (a pyramid) :-) >> Exactly the opposite of "I will use this pragmatic pattern until it >> breaks" but instead > That's what I meant by: "Simple Simple", architectural apex is broad > while the base is narrow (think inverted pyramid). >> "architectural beauty for eternity". > Yes! That what you get with: "Deceptively Simple" :-) > > > Kingsley >> >> Just look at the http specs. The fact that you can do a nice 303 is >> because someone in the distant past very cleverly designed a protocol >> goes well beyond the pragmatic "I have a URL (sic!) and want to fetch >> the Web page in HTML (sic!)". >> >> So when being proud of being the "pragmatic guys" keep in mind that >> nothing is as powerful in practice as something that is theoretically >> consistent. >> >> Best >> Martin >> >>
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 13:00:58 UTC