[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Are we losing out because of grammars?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Charles Reitzel <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 08:51:12 -0600
Ok by me. Systems for choosing the means of choosing,
or conserving maximum freedom of choice by
choosing wisely: if the choice here is to
pick a winner, over enabling choice among
alternatives focused on particular aspects,
my employer picks whatever Microsoft implements so
the local mammals will not waste organizational
resources thinking about the solution while
making a buck from the user instead of passing
it to them.
4) I must respectfully disagree w/ Mr. Bullard when he says,
On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:18:15 Len Bullard wrote:
>Yes: systems for choosing. If there is only one,
>there is no ambiguity. But is that a good thing?
>I think it an attractive thing to mammal brains
>that strive for closure instinctively and crave
>power and esteem physically, but a bad
>thing for systems that reciprocally evolve environments.
I think the mammals' requirements take precedence. Systems will evolve in
healthier ways when the people that write and use them don't waste a lot of
what I call "organizational bandwidth" discussing arcana like ambiguity
resolution algorithms. That discussion needs adequate resolution here on
this list - or someplace like it. Please don't pass the buck to the users.