Most of us have heard stories about the successes and failures of various software projects, and their relationship to code quality and planning. What is the right approach to design? Can one be both organic and purposeful?
The eternal BSD vs. Linux debate is a particularly interesting instance of some key questions as to the approaches one should take to design:
1. How much design is necessary up-front?
2. What level of flexibility should be built into each layer?
3. Are some forms of design better suited to particular arrangements of teams?
To answer these questions, I sought counsel from the highest authority in design: The Great Mind. The human superconsciousness that emerged some time in the 29th century: an amalgamation of the world's total sentience and information-processing capacity.
Kurt: So tell me, Great Mind. You seem the epitome of solid architecture. Was your design more organically grown, or was it an accumulation of smaller, unrelated changes?
The Great Mind: COME TO LEARN YOUR PLACE IN THE GREATER DESIGN OF THINGS.
Kurt: Great Mind... the caps lock... can you--
The Great Mind: I UNDERSTAND YOUR FEARS AND WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT ALL IS PEACE.
Kurt: That's very nice, but you haven't really answ--
The Great Mind: BENEATH ALL CHAOS THERE IS ONENESS. BENEATH ALL DISCORD IS ORDER. THAT WITHOUT PATTERN DOES NOT EXIST.
Kurt: So, are you saying--
The Great Mind: RUMINA-- NO, DEAR, I'M ON THE PHONE. I DON'T KNOW. IT'S THE PAST. LOOK. I-- JUST A SECOND.
Kurt: Great Mind?
The Great Mind: I UH... I HAVE TO GO.
Kurt: So--
The Great Mind then hung up and I felt a warmth and fullness of being not unlike love or a good taco. I felt the peace and grandeur of knowing that my question was answered, but was incapable of fully understanding or describing that answer.
Maybe The Great Mind was running the Linux kernel?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment