Mintys.Deriniai istorija
Paslėpti nežymius pakeitimus - Rodyti galutinio teksto pakeitimus
2017 rugsėjo 21 d., 17:31
atliko -
Pakeistos 1-6 eilutės iš
Žr. [[Būtinumas]], [[Tobulumas]]
Tinkamiausi sprendimai.
* In working on database systems (and for John Harland), I noticed that ''every solution opens up new problems'' in what seemed to be a well defined way. For example, if we create a key for our front door, then we have the problem: what happens if we lose the key? and so on. This means that we might be able to generate a complete structuring of all problems and their solutions. Then the point is to have ''optimal solutions'' (as there would generally be no ''perfect'' solutions). An optimal solution might be one where we typically spend half of our energy on the ''general solution'' and half on the ''exceptions''.
* Consider also my thoughts on databases, finding the optimum between overengineering and underengineering. I have this set of ideas that every solution opens up new problems. So the optimal solution is when we neither overengineer nor underengineer, but spend roughly half our energy on the general cases and half our energy on the exceptions.
* Optimality constraints are key to the languages. We minimalize the general constructions - do not have more spaces than needed. We maximalize the specific constructions - have the conversation carry as much transferable information as possible.
Tinkamiausi sprendimai.
* In working on database systems (and for John Harland), I noticed that ''every solution opens up new problems'' in what seemed to be a well defined way. For example, if we create a key for our front door, then we have the problem: what happens if we lose the key? and so on. This means that we might be able to generate a complete structuring of all problems and their solutions. Then the point is to have ''optimal solutions'' (as there would generally be no ''perfect'' solutions). An optimal solution might be one where we typically spend half of our energy on the ''general solution'' and half on the ''exceptions''.
* Consider also my thoughts on databases, finding the optimum between overengineering and underengineering. I have this set of ideas that every solution opens up new problems. So the optimal solution is when we neither overengineer nor underengineer, but spend roughly half our energy on the general cases and half our energy on the exceptions.
* Optimality constraints are key to the languages. We minimalize the general constructions - do not have more spaces than needed. We maximalize the specific constructions - have the conversation carry as much transferable information as possible.
į:
Žr. [[Tobulumas]]
2017 rugsėjo 21 d., 17:30
atliko -
Pakeistos 4-5 eilutės iš
* In working on database systems (and for John Harland), I noticed that ''every solution opens up new problems'' in what seemed to be a well defined way. For example, if we create a key for our front door, then we have the problem: what happens if we lose the key? and so on. This means that we might be able to generate a complete structuring of all problems and their solutions. Then the point is to have ''optimal
solutions'' (as there would generally be no ''perfect'' solutions). An optimal solution might be one where we typically spend half of our energy on the ''general solution'' and half on the ''exceptions''.
solutions'' (as there would generally be no ''perfect'' solutions). An optimal solution might be one where we typically spend half of our energy on the ''general solution'' and half on the ''exceptions''.
į:
* In working on database systems (and for John Harland), I noticed that ''every solution opens up new problems'' in what seemed to be a well defined way. For example, if we create a key for our front door, then we have the problem: what happens if we lose the key? and so on. This means that we might be able to generate a complete structuring of all problems and their solutions. Then the point is to have ''optimal solutions'' (as there would generally be no ''perfect'' solutions). An optimal solution might be one where we typically spend half of our energy on the ''general solution'' and half on the ''exceptions''.
2017 rugsėjo 21 d., 17:30
atliko -
Pakeistos 1-13 eilutės iš
Žr. [[Deriniai]], [[Būtinumas]]
'''[[Tobulumas]]'''
Optimality constraints are key to the languages. We minimalize the general constructions - do not have more spaces than needed. We maximalize the specific constructions - have the conversation carry as much transferable information as possible.
===Consider===
Consider also my thoughts on databases, finding the optimum between overengineering and underengineering.
{{Andrius}}: I have this set of ideas that every solution opens up new problems. So the optimal solution is when we neither overengineer nor underengineer, but spend roughly half our energy on the general cases and half our energy on the exceptions.
In working on database systems (and for John Harland), I noticed that ''every solution opens up new problems'' in what seemed to be a well defined way. For example, if we create a key for our front door, then we have the problem: what happens if we lose the key? and so on. This means that we might be able to generate a complete structuring of all problems and their solutions. Then the point is to have ''optimal
Optimality constraints are key to the languages. We minimalize the general constructions - do not have more spaces than needed. We maximalize the specific constructions - have the conversation carry as much transferable information as possible.
===Consider===
Consider also my thoughts on databases, finding the optimum between overengineering and underengineering.
{{Andrius}}: I have this set of ideas that every solution opens up new problems. So the optimal solution is when we neither overengineer nor underengineer, but spend roughly half our energy on the general cases and half our energy on the exceptions.
In working on database systems (and for John Harland), I noticed that ''every solution opens up new problems'' in what seemed to be a well defined way. For example, if we create a key for our front door, then we have the problem: what happens if we lose the key? and so on. This means that we might be able to generate a complete structuring of all problems and their solutions. Then the point is to have ''optimal
į:
Žr. [[Būtinumas]], [[Tobulumas]]
Tinkamiausi sprendimai.
* In working on database systems (and for John Harland), I noticed that ''every solution opens up new problems'' in what seemed to be a well defined way. For example, if we create a key for our front door, then we have the problem: what happens if we lose the key? and so on. This means that we might be able to generate a complete structuring of all problems and their solutions. Then the point is to have ''optimal
Tinkamiausi sprendimai.
* In working on database systems (and for John Harland), I noticed that ''every solution opens up new problems'' in what seemed to be a well defined way. For example, if we create a key for our front door, then we have the problem: what happens if we lose the key? and so on. This means that we might be able to generate a complete structuring of all problems and their solutions. Then the point is to have ''optimal
Pakeistos 6-33 eilutės iš
'''Bendra kalba'''
AndriusKulikauskas October 19, 2009 6:49 CET: UniversalLanguage is a term that I once used to mean the cataloguing
===Discussion===
Andrius, sorry that I have to ask: This is about PatternLanguages in the sense of ChristopherAlexander, isn't it?
If it is we should try to create a common view what a pattern language is, because otherwise we might easily get into a chaotic situation
The point is the imho PL is not for "resolving conflicts" but for "creating living systems" or "solving problems" and ... I'm not sure that UniversalLanguage does qualify as a pattern language.
It's important that we discuss this and create clearness. -- HelmutLeitner April 17, 2006 18:55 CET
----
It is my intuition that it should be tried to have Universal Language seen as PatternLanguage. What is required would be the explanation of the concept in regard to problems, tensions etc. - something that Philosophy missed to do....it is "adding an additional mirror to Philosophy" which I consider a VERY good exercise!!! FranzNahrada
----
Then your intuition is crap. Der UniversalLanguage is not a pattern language because it lacks all its main characteristics. If you insist on interpreting it that way, you will loose your credibility in the pattern language community. -- HelmutLeitner
į:
* Consider also my thoughts on databases, finding the optimum between overengineering and underengineering. I have this set of ideas that every solution opens up new problems. So the optimal solution is when we neither overengineer nor underengineer, but spend roughly half our energy on the general cases and half our energy on the exceptions.
* Optimality constraints are key to the languages. We minimalize the general constructions - do not have more spaces than needed. We maximalize the specific constructions - have the conversation carry as much transferable information as possible.
* Optimality constraints are key to the languages. We minimalize the general constructions - do not have more spaces than needed. We maximalize the specific constructions - have the conversation carry as much transferable information as possible.
2014 rugsėjo 10 d., 11:21
atliko -
Pridėtos 1-17 eilutės:
Žr. [[Deriniai]], [[Būtinumas]]
'''[[Tobulumas]]'''
Optimality constraints are key to the languages. We minimalize the general constructions - do not have more spaces than needed. We maximalize the specific constructions - have the conversation carry as much transferable information as possible.
===Consider===
Consider also my thoughts on databases, finding the optimum between overengineering and underengineering.
{{Andrius}}: I have this set of ideas that every solution opens up new problems. So the optimal solution is when we neither overengineer nor underengineer, but spend roughly half our energy on the general cases and half our energy on the exceptions.
In working on database systems (and for John Harland), I noticed that ''every solution opens up new problems'' in what seemed to be a well defined way. For example, if we create a key for our front door, then we have the problem: what happens if we lose the key? and so on. This means that we might be able to generate a complete structuring of all problems and their solutions. Then the point is to have ''optimal
solutions'' (as there would generally be no ''perfect'' solutions). An optimal solution might be one where we typically spend half of our energy on the ''general solution'' and half on the ''exceptions''.
'''[[Tobulumas]]'''
Optimality constraints are key to the languages. We minimalize the general constructions - do not have more spaces than needed. We maximalize the specific constructions - have the conversation carry as much transferable information as possible.
===Consider===
Consider also my thoughts on databases, finding the optimum between overengineering and underengineering.
{{Andrius}}: I have this set of ideas that every solution opens up new problems. So the optimal solution is when we neither overengineer nor underengineer, but spend roughly half our energy on the general cases and half our energy on the exceptions.
In working on database systems (and for John Harland), I noticed that ''every solution opens up new problems'' in what seemed to be a well defined way. For example, if we create a key for our front door, then we have the problem: what happens if we lose the key? and so on. This means that we might be able to generate a complete structuring of all problems and their solutions. Then the point is to have ''optimal
solutions'' (as there would generally be no ''perfect'' solutions). An optimal solution might be one where we typically spend half of our energy on the ''general solution'' and half on the ''exceptions''.
2014 rugsėjo 09 d., 14:40
atliko -
Pridėtos 1-25 eilutės:
'''Bendra kalba'''
AndriusKulikauskas October 19, 2009 6:49 CET: UniversalLanguage is a term that I once used to mean the cataloguing of structures and concepts that I was working on in my quest to KnowEverything. In setting up OurCulture wiki and its many levels, I tried to relate that to PatternLanguage. Helmut and Franz replied.
===AboutThisPage===
*VoicesForValues=AndriusKulikauskas, FranzNahrada, HelmutLeitner
===Discussion===
Andrius, sorry that I have to ask: This is about PatternLanguages in the sense of ChristopherAlexander, isn't it?
If it is we should try to create a common view what a pattern language is, because otherwise we might easily get into a chaotic situation.
The point is the imho PL is not for "resolving conflicts" but for "creating living systems" or "solving problems" and ... I'm not sure that UniversalLanguage does qualify as a pattern language.
It's important that we discuss this and create clearness. -- HelmutLeitner April 17, 2006 18:55 CET
----
It is my intuition that it should be tried to have Universal Language seen as PatternLanguage. What is required would be the explanation of the concept in regard to problems, tensions etc. - something that Philosophy missed to do....it is "adding an additional mirror to Philosophy" which I consider a VERY good exercise!!! FranzNahrada
----
Then your intuition is crap. Der UniversalLanguage is not a pattern language because it lacks all its main characteristics. If you insist on interpreting it that way, you will loose your credibility in the pattern language community. -- HelmutLeitner
AndriusKulikauskas October 19, 2009 6:49 CET: UniversalLanguage is a term that I once used to mean the cataloguing of structures and concepts that I was working on in my quest to KnowEverything. In setting up OurCulture wiki and its many levels, I tried to relate that to PatternLanguage. Helmut and Franz replied.
===AboutThisPage===
*VoicesForValues=AndriusKulikauskas, FranzNahrada, HelmutLeitner
===Discussion===
Andrius, sorry that I have to ask: This is about PatternLanguages in the sense of ChristopherAlexander, isn't it?
If it is we should try to create a common view what a pattern language is, because otherwise we might easily get into a chaotic situation.
The point is the imho PL is not for "resolving conflicts" but for "creating living systems" or "solving problems" and ... I'm not sure that UniversalLanguage does qualify as a pattern language.
It's important that we discuss this and create clearness. -- HelmutLeitner April 17, 2006 18:55 CET
----
It is my intuition that it should be tried to have Universal Language seen as PatternLanguage. What is required would be the explanation of the concept in regard to problems, tensions etc. - something that Philosophy missed to do....it is "adding an additional mirror to Philosophy" which I consider a VERY good exercise!!! FranzNahrada
----
Then your intuition is crap. Der UniversalLanguage is not a pattern language because it lacks all its main characteristics. If you insist on interpreting it that way, you will loose your credibility in the pattern language community. -- HelmutLeitner
Deriniai
Naujausi pakeitimai
网站
Įvadas #E9F5FC
Klausimai #FFFFC0
Teiginiai #FFFFFF
Kitų mintys #EFCFE1
Dievas man #FFECC0
Iš ankščiau #CCFFCC
Mieli skaitytojai, visa mano kūryba ir kartu visi šie puslapiai yra visuomenės turtas, kuriuo visi kviečiami laisvai naudotis, dalintis, visaip perkurti. - Andrius