Utilitarian beauty...

[fajrdrako]

Ugly programs are like ugly suspension bridges: they're much more liable to collapse than pretty ones, because the way humans (especially engineer-humans) perceive beauty is intimately related to our ability to process and understand complexity. - Eric S. Raymond

Comments

[rhiannonhero]

Interesting. I'm interested in knowing more about that.

*off to google*

[fajrdrako]

Did you find anything?

[ceruleancat]

Interesting statement. Of course, it all depends on what he means by beauty, what parameters define beauty, what concrete considerations he's couching behind vague aesthetic terminology. Unless it's a very wide definition, I'm pretty sure the statement is a load of rubbish, from a practical standpoint.

[fajrdrako]

s something I'm going to have to think about. Obviously a lot of beautiful things - trees, lakes, sculptures - are not utilitarian at all at first glance, until you think of their role in the ecostystem, or their effect on human culture. But he's talking about human artifacts here... Are the more beautiful bridges the strongest? It appears that the most practical buildings are the ugliest, judging by what's going up in most major cities. Or is that just fashion, and the buildings aren't as viable as they might be?

I like the idea of a link between beauty and function.

Of course, it might just be the engineer's belief in the beauty of an elegant mathematical formula.