RE: Is "simplicity" a useful architectural constraint?

I am wondering if simplicity is related to 'being intuitive'. e.g., Java has
large number of classes and several packages but one can intuitively relate
what functionality will be in which class/package.
And Gregory Bateson ( says:
 1. A mind is an aggregate of interacting parts or components
 2. The interaction between parts of mind is triggered by difference, and
difference is a nonsubstantial phenomenon not located in space or time;
difference is related to negentropy and entropy rather than to energy.

 Which hints that simplicity (as a mental function) is related to implicit
order or being natural and intuitive.

Bharat Gogia |   netNumina | T: 617 575 8235  | F: 617 575 8100
Do or do not. There is no "try".	  All models are bad,	
- Yoda to Skywalker 	                     but some are useful.	

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Lowery []
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 1:43 PM
To: 'Duane Nickull'
Cc: 'Tim Bray';
Subject: RE: Is "simplicity" a useful architectural constraint?

> The related architectural document was only 40 pages and tied 
> together a
> series of other specifications.  This modular approach enabled (or
> should have enabled) a layperson to read each specification and
> understand it as a component.  Each modular specification also made
> normative references to other protocols, themselves governed by
> specifications (examples: W3C schema, SOAP, HTTP, MIME).  

Okay, how about a refined metric:

(Size in pages) + (no. of specs dependent upon)X(weighting factor)

> <sigh> It all seems so simple on paper ;-)

Well, yeah! Every time.

[I wonder if Tim's regretted posting his simple question, yet?]

Received on Thursday, 3 January 2002 14:01:58 UTC