On 9/13/13 6:40 PM, glen wrote:
So, it would work fairly well without a requirement for absolute
transparency.
If the goal is to develop versatile technical language, and someone
effectively owns a bunch of the useful words (interfaces , ...) that is
an impediment to giving everyone a fair shake at doing technical work.
Those that can afford to license the useful interfaces at least aren't
at a deficit compared to those that cannot. The worse part is that
certain interfaces become less mutable than others. If the licensed
interfaces aren't the perfect ones, then the sellers and customers of
those words will try to keep them around even if they lack deep merit.
If, on the other hand, the useful parts of the interfaces can be
recast in another way, and understood in isolated bits then better
interfaces can be built around them. The frozen language (interfaces,
..), I think, tends to limit the imagination of the users. The split
between users and implementers or vendors and customers, is
artificial. The ethic of absolute transparency says that if you want
something, you don't need to bitch to someone to get it, you can just go
make it. This was the original appeal of computers to me: Imagination
-> Reality
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
