From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,b41c6348841d8091 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b41c6348841d8091 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: nospam@thanks.com.au (Don Harrison) Subject: Re: subjectivity Date: 1997/09/10 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 271219027 Sender: news@syd.csa.com.au X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dev50 References: <341026A7.37BE@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> Organization: CSC Australia, Sydney Reply-To: nospam@thanks.com.au Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: W. Wesley Groleau wrote: : :> :> a) Simpler :> :> b) Views may be directed to specific clients :> : :> :Well, OK, but a) is subjective and viewed another way, the Ada :> :mechanism is clearly "simpler". :> :> Looks like we have different ideas of what is simple. :( : :Which is why it is subjective. No, it just means the concept of simplicity is probably being confused with something else - familiarity or ease-of-use, for example. : Unless we define "simple" as :"easy for the speaker to use because he/she is accustomed to it." You could but I think it would miss the mark. Ease-of-use can be due to a number of factors including familiarity and simplicity. If you're familiar with a language tool, it will tend to be easier to use but that doesn't necessarily mean it's simple. Also, if a tool is simple, it will tend to make it easy to use but may not be immediately so due to a lack of familiarity - the learning curve effect. If a tool is neither familiar nor simple (as APL was to me when I learnt it), it definitely won't be easy to use (and it wasn't). Simplicity tends to engender ease of use but is constrained by familiarity. Familiarity tends to engender ease of use but is constrained by simplicity. My experience of discovering Eiffel demonstrates these effects. It was immediately clear to me that Eiffel was simpler than Ada in spite of my familiarity with Ada. Just because it was simple didn't immediately make it easier to use, the reason being that it was unfamiliar. In particular, I wasn't familiar with the various idioms of OO in general, and Eiffel in particular, that would enable me to use it effectively. I'm still learning them. Clearly, if simplicity were the same as ease-of-use due to familiarity, I would have found Eiffel complex compared with Ada, but I didn't. :> I know you'll probably disagree, ..., but I believe simplicity is :> innately, universally, and uniformly recognisable by everyone. :> It's an aspect of human perception that occurs :> automatically and intantaneously without conscious thought. :> Because its a *perceived* quality, some believe it to be subjective. : :Since you and other(s), by your own admission, have "different :ideas of what is simple," you should acknowledge that it is not :"uniformly recognisable by everyone." I still think it is, if they take the trouble to identify personal bias. The signal is trying to get through to the brain, but other things such as familiarity and pre-conceived ideas are intent on derailing it. If we identified and filtered out those interfering factors, we would have the same perception of simplicity, IMO. Considering that is unlikely to happen, it's useful to circumvent that interference by examining the factors that give rise to the notion of simplicity. These factors, at least, are objective and provide a basis for comparison. :Hence, it is subjective :except when, in a particular forum, all participants agree on :(in your words) "what measurable qualities engender the notion :of simplicity and ... an 'objective' basis for measuring it." Sadly true. Don. (Reverse to reply) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Don Harrison au.com.csa.syd@donh