
wizard10000 wrote:...what does make me a little nervous is Yet Another Layer between my data and userspace.
No_windows wrote:I've ... never encountered any kind of complexity, but I've never ... really used it for anything, either.
Good technology is concise. A technology should contain no unnecessary parts, a program no unnecessary routines or dependencies, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.
dasein wrote:To paraphrase Strunk and White's Elements of Style (with deepest apologies)Good technology is concise. A technology should contain no unnecessary parts, a program no unnecessary routines or dependencies, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.
dasein wrote:No_windows wrote:I've ... never encountered any kind of complexity, but I've never ... really used it for anything, either.
In other words, you're saying it's superfluous?
dasein wrote:To paraphrase Strunk and White's Elements of Style (with deepest apologies)
Good technology is concise. A technology should contain no unnecessary parts, a program no unnecessary routines or dependencies, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.
edbarx wrote:dasein wrote:To paraphrase Strunk and White's Elements of Style (with deepest apologies)
Good technology is concise. A technology should contain no unnecessary parts, a program no unnecessary routines or dependencies, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.
An idealisation of what technology should be in the eyes of an idealist who hasn't yet realised how complex reality is. I expect a quote like this from an intellectually gifted young adolescent, but definitely, NOT from an adult past the age of thirty.
Living cells work, yet internally, they are extremely complex. Even a DNA has redundant genes which further contradict this idealist philosophy.
According to the quote, a DNA is a bad design. Living cells, are nanotechnological systems that occur naturally.![]()
Edbarx wrote:An idealisation of what technology should be in the eyes of an idealist who hasn't yet realised how complex reality is. I expect a quote like this from an intellectually gifted young adolescent, but definitely, NOT from an adult past the age of thirty.
Living cells work, yet internally, they are extremely complex. Even a DNA has redundant genes which further contradict this idealist philosophy.
According to the quote, a DNA is a bad design. Living cells, are nanotechnological systems that occur naturally.![]()
Most people, save some real "whack jobs", would argue that DNA was not designed. Furthermore, non-coding genes -and that's what I believe you are referring to - are by no means "redundant". And if we want to be pedantic, it certainly is not the case that DNA "has genes".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests