> > "Simpler is better" isn't necessarily the case.
I think it it must be evaluated within the proper context. If the context is risk management/problem prevention(as reliability of a vehicle is), then it will be true UNLESS it introduces a new dependency or negative condition at the same time, because in all cases the systems being talked about must still satisfy the original goals of their function regardless of how they are implemented. If both a simple system and complex system satisfy the purpose of their functions to the same extent, and if the simpler one does not add any negatives in relation to the more complex system, the simpler one is always better. Of course we could get even more complicated in the evaluation, and include things like externalities involved in the choice of systems etc, and maybe it would transition into a philosophical question about net utility... but let's keep it simple, since it'll have a much higher probability of being better :) Jim Akiba |
Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of
Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection
will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!
Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com
The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.
Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.