First came bikes, they had very few moving parts, and so were easy to understand Then came the infernal combustion engine, with more moving parts and harder to understand, but definitely faster Then came the jet turbine, with just a single moving part, and rockets with none
A car is more effective than a bike, but also more complex A plane is more effective than a car, but also less complex So simplicity and effectiveness are not correlated here. Why is it, then, that cars seen as normal and simple; while jets and rockets are perceived as modern and advanced? As many will point out, rockets pre-date cars by a long way, the Chinese have used them in fireworks for a *long* time. And the concepts underlying a turbine are far simpler than those behind a four-stroke engine. It's a good metaphor, with plenty of scope for extending. Consider that modern petrol engines use "injection"... On 6 August 2010 03:40, Christian Catchpole <[email protected]> wrote: > I can give you an 8 bit Assembler spec in about 10 pages. Coding in > that must be really easy. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- Kevin Wright mail/google talk: [email protected] wave: [email protected] skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
