Subject: Re: ARC + COND

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 09:06:30 -0800 (PST)

Hi -

> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:24:00 -0600
> From: Tammy Ferris <[email-masked]>
> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
> CC: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: ARC + COND
> References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
...
> Can you please be specific and clarify what it is that you think is complex?
...

I can't speak for Juergen or Lauren, but here's my view:

The complexity of the solution should be no worse than the
complexity of the task to be carried out.  Making something
simple happen should be simple; it's ok if it's harder
to do something that accomplishes more complicated goals.

Perceived complexity is as bad as real complexity.  If we
have a clean model and fail to communicate it or its use,
we will have failed.  

I like to make a distinction between "complex" and
"complicated".  Complex is ok, if it reflects the
nature of the task at hand.  Complicated is not.

 -------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn           [email-masked]
 Voice: +1 408 546-1006  BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 Fax:   +1 408 965-0359  2141 North First Street
 http://www.bmc.com/     San José, California 95131  USA
 -------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 -------------------------------------------------------