Re: OT: Re: Less is more

> Keith Moore writes:
> > But if you look at the kinds of malformed dates that are out there,
> > most are not malformed because the programmer tried to use some legal
> > variant of the date syntax and failed to get it right - they're
> > malformed because the programmer failed to even try to get it right.

To which Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> True. But IMO, if the syntax were simple, strict and understandable to
> the average programmer, this probably wouldn't happen.

I'm not so sure, Arnt. I get the feeling with many mail implementations t=
hat=20
the implementors failed to appreciate that RFC822 was actually meant to b=
e a=20
strict grammar at all. Perhaps the human-readability of it lends the=20
impression that it's *only* meant to be human readable. Or maybe somethin=
g=20
closer to your explanation is also true in some cases: the grammar is=20
sufficiently daunting that implementors just aim for an approximation,=20
coupled with some basic compatibility tests.

It's not clear to me what it would take to make implementors follow the=20
standard as written, and it's more of a psychology problem than a compute=
r=20
science problem. My best current guess as to how to deal with the problem=
 is=20
to assume that implementors are lazy, and make a point of giving them=20
something easy to implement. Assume that they'll take short-cuts to=20
implementation, and thus take as many short-cuts in advance as you can, s=
o to=20
speak. This design approach runs contrary to the typical designer mentali=
ty.=20
A designer thinks of his design as a great work of art and engineering, w=
ith=20
each subtle nuance of grammar thoughtfully crafted into place to form an=20
aesthetically pleasing whole.

Well, this is how I would caricature myself, at least: a lazy programmer =
and=20
an "artiste" designer. I'm unrepentant on the lazy programmer front, but =
I'm=20
taking steps to become a practical and pragmatic designer without=20
compromising aesthetics.  In this area, I do believe that "less is more" =
is=20
the right sort of attitude. Einstein said we should make theories as simp=
le=20
as possible, but no simpler, and it seems just as good a maxim for design.

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing le=
ft to=20
add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry (1900-44)