Richard O'Keefe wrote:
Design-by-negativity can *be* a way of being creative.
I've lost count of the number of times that I've been
explaining to someone why something can't be done, and
suddenly realised that one of the reasons was invalid
and seen how to do it.
The key is not whether you explore the design space
from a positive end or from a negative end, but whether
you *explore* it.
Hi Richard,
I think we using "positive" and "negative" in a bit of a different sense (which
may be my fault for not explaining perfectly in the first post). There are both
positive and negative *facts* about design. There are things you can do, and
things you can't. These are facts. I'm referring more to a specific kind of
process (a specific kind of exploration)---in my terms, "design by negation"
means that you dominant activity in design in cutting away possibilities, and
what's left (however awkward) is what you must build. I have done this by habit,
but I would like to shift into a mode of design that is focused on construction
rather than destruction---to view design as an opportunity to meet most goals by
clever combining of facets.
Thanks,
Mike
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
