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 ;-)

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