On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:11 AM, David Mitchell <[email protected]> wrote: > Elegance ... is a much misunderstood term nowadays because it now seems to > be used in two completely contradictory senses. To me elegance is not a > quality of the finished design but of the folding sequence
This strikes me not as contradictory but disconnected. Or at least potentially so. A model can have an elegant folding sequence, it can be an elegant model when finished, or both (or neither). The complication, of course, is that an inelegant sequence can lead to an elegant-appearing result (and, I suppose, an elegant sequence can lead to an inelegant result) and then it's turtles all the way down when arguing about whether elegance must include both process and product, etc. Folders have insight into the process so they naturally want to (often) include that as part of the definition of an elegant model, but I see no reason to deny that elegance is a quality that can be appreciated in things whose origin and process of construction one has little or no idea about. c -- Chris Lott <[email protected]>
