A problem that presents itself with our use of modern technologies +and how we develop them is how extremely inefficient it ends up being. +Often times the technological solutions we choose to solve a given +problem are overly complex and rigid, requiring us to be wasteful. As a +result of this demand for poorly designed technologies, suppliers +provide exactly what we ask for, and as such engineers develop +technologies that promote this inefficient use.
+ +Basing these primarily on the UNIX +philosophy[1], I've come up with a five +principles by which I decide which technological solutions to elect, as +well as how my own software should be designed. It's worth noting that +these are not only applicable to software or even digital technological +solutions, but rather can be applied to any use of technology.
+ +Necessity. We must understand this principle not in its +strictest form (i.e. what is absolutely necessary to survive), but +rather in the true sense of what an ordered use of technology is: a +means to achieve an end. We call them "solutions" because they solve a +problem. As such, technology should not be an end within itself, and if +we are to use a technology, it should be to achieve a set goal. If there +is no goal then we should likely not use the technology.
+ +As a note on this matter, we must distinguish technology as a tool +(which is the object of this article) and technology used in art (e.g. a +video game), as in this case the art is the end to which the technology +is ordered.
+ +Simplicity. After we determine that a technological solution +is required, and as such have also determined what features we require +of said technology to provide a viable solution, we must always choose +the simplest option available to use. This is to say, a solution that +does only that which we require of it and nothing more. In the (common) +event that this is not possible, we must choose that solution which has +the least amount of excess features. The reason being that the more +complex a system is the higher chances there are of that system having +a structural flaw, and due to the complexity of the technology, solving +it becomes its very own struggle. As such, by having a system that is no +more complex than absolutely necessary, one avoids a larger number of +technological problems. To give an example, one is much more likely to +encounter problems writing with a typewriter than with a pen or +pencil.
+ +This principle, however, should never trump the principle of +necessity. That is to say, we should not neglect a necessity in the name +of simplicity. If a necessity requires that a more complex solution be +used, then this overrides the principle of simplicity.
+ +Modularity. In aid of maintaining the principle of simplicity, +a technological solution should also be modular, and therefore +facilitating the addition and removal of modules/components that can add +new features. This permits the base technology to only provide the most +basic and fundamental of functionalities, while also being extensible +such that new features that may be required by the user can easily be +added or removed when need be. Here one could think of the example of a +hunter's rifle, upon which a scope may be mounted.
+ +Interoperability. A technological solution must be able to +easily operate with other technologies, thereby permitting that each one +may specialize in a specific task, and the output of one may serve as +input for the next. This principle reinforces the principle of +simplicity by allowing for each individual technology to specialize in +its own task, rather than requiring that a single technology solve the +entire problem. This can be thought of in the sense of an assembly line, +where at each station a different task is performed. Each task is +independent of the one before it, yet they all contribute towards the +same ultimate goal.
+ +Universality. The technology must be able to input and output +in a standard and universal format that is not specific to that +technology, therefore facilitating its replacement with a better +solution. This principle serves to enable the previous principle of +interoperability, as it is what allows for one technology to input the +output of another, making proper use of it. It also makes the system of +independent interoperable technologies more flexible, allowing one to +remove one component and replace it with another that may have more +aptitude solving a particular problem. An example of this would be +language itself, as we use a common language in order to communicate +ideas in a standard manner such that it may be commonly understood.
+ +Now, although these principles are great in theory, in practice we +find that often times solutions meeting all these principles are simply +not available. This is especially true in the area of computer programs, +where often times companies will neglect these principles (regardless of +how useful they are) for business reasons. However, they may still serve +as a general guideline when we discern what technological solutions to +choose to solve different problems we are confronted with, and those +technologies that are compliant with more principles should be favored +over those that are compliant with less.
+ + + + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy +