Conversation

Replying to
that's one of those "if you actually read the books" issues: there is a distinct reason *why* old is (often) good and new is (often) bad according to him, and it has mainly to do with procurement and contracting practices and the inability to admit new information
3
8
Replying to
If so, had it been my theory, I’d probably have looked for counterexamples to prevent correlation=causation. Like “here’s an old Roman building that’s bad in the same way, and a new skyscraper that’s good in the old way.” But maybe pattern-based thinkers don’t naturally do that.
2
3
Replying to and
(but again that's a 4-volume, 2500-page book that will cost you $350 and take you a year to read) new buildings that are "good in the old way"—at least ones he didn't build—are harder to come by because of the dictates of the economic process that gets them built
1
4
Replying to
Again if it had been my theory… I’d have gone out of my way to find other good things to say about modern stuff. But that’s because I’m sensitive to having views attributed to me that I don’t hold, so I tend to invest in active counterprogramming of misreadings I can anticipate.
2
1
Replying to
Perhaps. If so, it’s probably a proportionately big task to reclaim his legacy from the misreading you appear to be countering. Like an essay applying his theories to the design of space stations or something.
2
2
Replying to and
Incidentally my first intro to him was quite future-oriented via the Stewart Brand crowd. Straightforward design exercises. Then I found mostly trads getting into it, and I was like “huh, okay, not my scene.” The patterns on the software side never appealed to me.
1
1
Replying to and
but seriously though, the design pattern stuff (according to ) was primarily a failure to transmit the important aspects of patterns to the software dev community, but imo to paraphrase gretzky, they were "skating to where the puck was, not where it was going"
1
1
Show replies