Functionalism, aesthetics Was:(RE: I come to praise .join, not to bury it...)

[Mike C. Fletcher]

And here I was going to avoid getting into this conversation again...

Recap (for those who have not been following along):
	Objections raised to the current definition of a "joiner" and the resulting
placement of the join method within the string type (as opposed to making it
a method on all sequence objects). I won't address this particular issue, it
has been sufficiently (excessively) explored for a decided issue. Suffice
that people like methods on objects, people like the idea of healing the
type/class split, one particular method might require a lookup in the
documentation for some people.

	Objections raised to the syntax of ".".join( something )
	Point raised that the . glyph is used primarily because of a correspondence
between the semantic meaning of "joined, element of" and the physical
connection afforded by the . character.  [Unchallenged]
	Point raised (and seconded if I recall correctly) that the physical joining
of the object (scanned as a single element) and method/attribute name is
reduced and potentially obviated when the object being accessed is expressed
as a short string literal (as in the case with ".".join). [Unchallenged]
	Objections raised to raising objections about the syntax of ".".join
without rigorous proof of functional degradation (aesthetic considerations
declared invalid for the purposes of discussion).  Request made to all those
unwilling to subscribe to solely functionalist criteria to just stop
bothering these decent people ;o) .
	Alternatives proposed:
		"." . join( )
		"."..join( ) &c
none of these was considered particularly satisfactory (obviation of the
physical connection of the glyphs, unfamiliarity of the user, need for
special casing), though the first item, by virtue of being usable today, is
less odious than the other options. [Unchallenged]
	Topic largely beaten to death, given that the language has already moved
beyond the question.  [It is a wart, we will deal with it]


The place of aesthetics...

Some Definitions:
	Functionalism -- movements within design theory exploring the use of
functional requirements as a generative and limiting mechanism.  "Nothing
can be added or taken away without detriment to the whole."  Includes many
"baroque" structures, where functional requirements lead to extremely
complex (and aesthetically pleasing) structures generated from simple first
principles.
	Minimalism -- movements within design theory exploring the simplification
and abstraction of designs. Often eliminates and/or minimizes expression of
functional structures in order to achieve a particular aesthetic
sensibility. The International Style (Corbusier &c) is an example of
minimalism.
	Eclecticism -- movement within design theory at the close of the
19th-century focusing on the "proper application of style", particularly
focusing on the social and semantic interpretation of stylistic elements
within a context.  Due to the rhetoric of the turn of the 20th-century
"functionalist" movement, generally seen as the antithesis of functionalism.
	Semantic Analysis -- Postmodern architects' reinterpretation of eclecticism
to fit within the orthodoxy of modern architecture. Reintroduces social and
semantic interpretation of particular structures into the "requirements" for
a structure.  Recognizes the fulfilment of deeper needs (social, spiritual,
emotional, philosophical) as part of the program for any given structure.
Tends to produce very simplistic and surface-oriented fulfilment of these
needs (they are still learning).
	Japan -- country with advanced and sophisticated aesthetic understanding.
Expresses itself (among other ways) in a juxtaposition of sensual and
minimalist design elements.  Strong tradition of "discovered" and
"wonder-full" elements introduced to provide pleasure and experiential
stimulation for the user.  A very sophisticated "aesthetic shorthand".


	The reason I felt it necessary to jump in here again is the implicit
creation of a "inner circle" of the "initiated" who are considered "worthy"
to contribute to a discussion about the evolution of the language.  The
users of a system, whether it is a building, a language, a piece of
software, or a chair, need to be heard.  A user complaining that something
is "ugly", "bad" or "wrong" needs the nature of their discomfort
ascertained, and that knowledge integrated into further design decisions.
	Designers who ignore their users, assuming that their own understanding of
the system is correct, and that anyone who is unable to speaking the dialect
of designers cannot possibly contribute to a design, will create
monstrosities which are next to impossible to inhabit.  Functionalism only
works when the understanding of "function" is broadened to include the
entire process of inhabitation, not just the parti-sketch with which the
architect is fascinated.  The modernist movement proved this time and again
with awe-inspiring buildings which failed to be good places to live.  The
postmodernists continue to prove it with each building they inflict upon the
world.

Your friendly neighbourhood designer signing off...
Mike

PS...
	Design is about solutions.  The problem is aesthetic.  Aesthetic solutions
are possible.  For instance, build an editor which allows for kerning or
alternate glyphs between the " and . glyphs such that the connection is
physically/graphically re-established between the two items.


-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Martelli [mailto:aleaxit at yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 10:10 AM
To: python-list at python.org
Subject: Re: I come to praise .join, not to bury it...


"Carel Fellinger" <cfelling at iae.nl> wrote in message
news:98rmod$c8p$1 at animus.fel.iae.nl...
    [snip]
> > some people (just as it is going to attract others), so,
> > it's not a clear "win" either way, even if you just frame
> > it as a popularity-race.  Focus on *substance*, on the
>
> but if you get too blinded by this substance thing, you might easily
> overlook that in the end you have to weight things and there again the
> seasoned sense of aesthetics of the gifted ones is what makes the
> difference.

I appreciate "form follows function" as an aesthetic principle.

Clearly, given such masterpieces of functional spareness as
Bauhaus and other artistic schools of this century have been
able to produce, I'm not alone in this (and the spare functional
beauty of Medieval Francescan churches, etc, stands to prove
that this is not by any means an idea new to this century; also,
of course, it's NOT by any means an idea limited to Western
culture, as for example a certain Zen-inspired style of Japanese
furniture shows).

Just as clearly, given such masterpieces of rich ornamentation
as great Baroque architects (etc, etc -- again, this is not
limited to one century, or one continent!) have produced, it
is anything but a _universally accepted_ guiding principle for
the fashioning of beauty in human artefacts.

You seem to imply some moderation (have to weight things) is
key to YOUR aesthetics -- fine, Aristotle will agree, as will
no doubt others, but much breathtaking beauty is instead in
works which pushed their guiding principles to absolute
extremes (Bach's "Art of the Fugue", Picasso's "Guernica",
Olbrich's "Sezession Haus", Leopardi's "Infinito" -- where
is any 'moderation' or 'weighting' in these and many other
masterpieces across all arts and centuries and continents?!).

In my own profession, I make certain choices which I perceive
as guided by 'aesthetics' when I cannot afford to articulate
in full detail the path back from the practical example up to
the guiding-principle; my experience (and 'gift', if any) may
help this synthesis (a productivity plus) by helping me
perceive as "elegant" an architecture which will prove helpful
to the design-task at hand.  If and when challenged, though, I
can and will fall back to the time-consuming, perhaps boring,
but often enlightening task of detailed analysis of the
constituent elements -- there is nothing 'inherently ineffable'
in this.  I see architects of manufacts with more psychological
interactions, such as GUI's or buildings, perform similarly --
a sense of beauty to guide their everyday work (as reasoning
back to first principles would take forever and slow things
down unacceptably), but solid, explainable reasons they can
trace back if and when needed... *IF* they're worth a dime as
building-architects and/or GUI-architects.  And for the only
'art per se' I _do_ know a little bit about, cinema, I see a
very similar pattern again -- yet farther removed, OK, but a
great movie can be fully analyzed (and IS, over and over again,
in all sorts of debates and critical publications).

That doesn't mean it's possible to make somebody _without_
appropriate gifts into a great movie director, GUI designer,
building architect, OR software architect, of course -- but,
it DOES mean each of these professionals need not fall back
on vague generalities and empty hand-waving if and when their
design choices get challenged.

Somebody who's unable to do anything but talk of aesthetics
when discussing a choice in the architecture of a software
component is simply not contributing to the discussion.  It
looks good to you, it looks bad to him, it looks indifferent
to her, yawn, great debate, now let's get beyond this to the
REAL meat of the issue, please -- the technical implications
of this, that, or the other choice in a specific matter.

If you _can't_ get down to concrete specifics, then either
you're not investing enough time & energy to contribute
(in which case, staying out of a debate WOULD be a nice
matter of courtesy), or you lack some specific (experience,
culture, professional background, whatever) to be able to
analyze and express your surface impressions in the issue --
in which case, it's quite possible that they're misfounded,
and, IF the huge investment of time and energy doesn't
faze you, in-depth analysis to see if they ARE might well
be warranted (and that is basically what I've been doing
throughout this thread -- striving to help others articulate
their objections, in great detail, by first laying out in
just as much details my reason for NOT objecting at all to
the architecture Guido has chosen for .join; it won't of
course have any direct repercussion on how Python behaves
in the matter, but it MAY have positive implications on
technical growth of the people involved, and thus, very
indirectly, on future efforts on their part).


> > other hand, is going to be a win for all who _are_ involved
> > with Python -- not just those who happen to be on the
> > "I like it" side vs the "I like it not" one (and I've
> > never seen any argument about _aesthetics_ [as opposed to
>
> I hope you'll see the argument in the above:)
>
> > _usability_ -- human-factors studies DO have a substantial
> > side too:-)] that doesn't boil down to such trifles]).

Nope: it _still_ boils down to aesthetics being AT BEST
a mental and verbal shorthand to avoid the considerable
investment required to articulate the concrete underlying
realities in detail.  AT WORST (and, I suspect, more often,
particularly in Usenet debates) a way for somebody to keep
spewing words on a subject on which they actually have
nothing concrete, constructive, and useful to say.


Alex



--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list