- From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:56:51 -0000
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > Jeff Bone wrote, > > However this ignores the fact that there's "power > > > in large values" and that going to smaller, fine-grained > interfaces > > > with more specific types produces tighter coupling and > > > non-linear growth of compositional complexity. > > > > I don't think it's anything like that clear cut. > > > > Types don't merely have complexity costs, they have complexity > > benefits as well. > Miles Sabin wrote: > Note that we're talking about compositional or architectural > complexity, not complexity in general. I would suggest it's > very clear cut that having an open-ended and arbitrarily > large set of types introduces compositional or architectural > complexity; it's the genericity of e.g. HTTP across all > Http-typed resources that enables caching proxies and other > interesting intermediaries to be usefully plugged in ad hoc > and post facto. > Jeff Bone: > > A type is a constraint: it sets bounds on the range > > of acceptable values of any instance of that type, and as such > > _reduces_ complexity. > > Without a doubt. It would help if y'all said what you mean by complexity. Bill de hÓra -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0.4 iQA/AwUBPKGzceaWiFwg2CH4EQIUXgCdEeDFME7yDcaAUlll8I6NqJHdccIAmway 1+5Pku1WgZc/6FJhcWEqd5tm =AcMn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2002 07:02:41 UTC