Mintys.Deriniai istorijaPaslėpti nežymius pakeitimus  Rodyti galutinio teksto pakeitimus 2017 rugsėjo 21 d., 17:31
atliko 
Pakeistos 16 eilutės iš
Žr. [[ 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 45 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''. 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 113 eilutės iš
Žr. [[ 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 Pakeistos 633 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. 2014 rugsėjo 10 d., 11:21
atliko 
Pridėtos 117 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''. 2014 rugsėjo 09 d., 14:40
atliko 
Pridėtos 125 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 
DeriniaiNaujausi 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 
Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2017 rugsėjo 21 d., 17:31
