Like I said, "All I've seen are people's personal opinions on the subject." I don't need to see more of them.
Please cite some authoritative source for the definition you propose. -- Nick On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Architecture is the structure and the vision, design are the details > that matter and implementation is the bricks. > > To use the skeleton analogy > > Architecture is the outline, the need for the skeleton its parameters > are requirements, the organs and their function and how they will be > contained > > Design is the detail of where the organs are put, what materials to be > used for the bones and how the eye should work > > Implementation is making it all flesh and refining the design so it > actually works, but in the case of the human eye not actually getting > rid of the massive cabling error in the design. > > So the architecture says the eye should receive light and colour and > be able to discern them to a given accuracy > The design says this means there needs to be receptors and these > receptors need cabling to link to the brain and the cabling is linked > together within the eye before being sent back. It describes a lens > and a pupil and how they need to work > > The implementation builds the lens, builds the eye and takes the > cabling out into the eye and then back again, not suggesting that a > better approach would have been to take the cabling directly out the > back and then onto the brain. > > That is why architecturally and implementation wise the human eye is > perfect but its design is certainly flawed and showing no real > evidence of intelligence ;) > > Steve
