[Re: xml from ed]

[Matt Graham]

Edward Glowacki <glowack2@msu.edu> wrote:
> I've already wasted way too much time and energy trying to find a
> good way to manage my content, and as a result I haven't *produced*
> any content.  The problem with computers is simple: they cause
> interference between the idea and the execution of that idea,
> instead of facilitating that interaction.

s/computers/systems/  (and probably after that, s/systems/things in general/
).

_Systemantics_, by John Gall, explores the basic problem in detail:  You want
X.  So you put together a system to deliver X, and then find out that the
system delivers not X, but 0.99*X + 0.01*Y and has all kinds of side effects
that the system designer never intended or thought about.  Interesting book,
in the same vein as _The Peter Principle_, but not nearly as widely known. 
The main conclusion the author reached was "Avoid systems whenever possible,
which is hardly ever."  And "If you must build a system, make it as simple as
possible.  The probability of failure varies as the complexity of the system
to the Nth power, where N varies from 1 to (bignum)." 

<RAMBLE>
Occasionally, a rigid system can enhance creativity/expression.  I'd say that
writing an English sonnet can be easier than writing a freeverse poem.  (well,
the sonnet is limited to 14 lines, and I didn't say it had to be a *good*
sonnet...)  But that's a special case.

Overall, I'd say that the interference between the idea and the execution is
what makes things interesting.  Usually in the sense of that ancient Chinese
curse, but every so often, in the good sense.
</RAMBLE>

-- 
Matt G / Dances With Crows
There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
"I backed up my brain to tape, but tar says the tape contains no data...."