The main objection I have to the negative process (can't be done) is that is so often bogus. "Proof by lack of imagination". I guess it works for Richard, though not for Michael's architect, because Richard is able to catch his bogus reasoning *and he is willing*** to do so, which requires humility and ego-strength.
- Conal On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Michael P Mossey <m...@alumni.caltech.edu>wrote: > Richard O'Keefe wrote: > >> Design-by-negativity can *be* a way of being creative. >> I've lost count of the number of times that I've been >> explaining to someone why something can't be done, and >> suddenly realised that one of the reasons was invalid >> and seen how to do it. >> >> The key is not whether you explore the design space >> from a positive end or from a negative end, but whether >> you *explore* it. >> > > Hi Richard, > > I think we using "positive" and "negative" in a bit of a different sense > (which may be my fault for not explaining perfectly in the first post). > There are both positive and negative *facts* about design. There are things > you can do, and things you can't. These are facts. I'm referring more to a > specific kind of process (a specific kind of exploration)---in my terms, > "design by negation" means that you dominant activity in design in cutting > away possibilities, and what's left (however awkward) is what you must > build. I have done this by habit, but I would like to shift into a mode of > design that is focused on construction rather than destruction---to view > design as an opportunity to meet most goals by clever combining of facets. > > Thanks, > > Mike > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
