What a great write up, Skip.  It is well said and entirely valid, IMHO.  The 
only thing that threw me was "fru-fru."  I don't recall ever hearing that 
term but from the context (hood ornament), which was an excellent analogy, I 
got it.
TNX

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dr Skip" <drskip@gmail.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclist@mit.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: [EE] Language choice


> As many an older engineer will testify, form is often an overlooked part 
> of
> function. It's a myopic view of the system requirements that separates the 
> two.
>
> If the goal is to have happy customers, or happy users, or sell the 
> maximum
> amount of widgets, and it always boils down to that or the engineer 
> doesn't get
> paid, form and function go hand in hand. A device (or piece of software) 
> that
> doesn't get used as much as could be isn't the best engineered device for 
> the
> job. It may be that some of the criteria are outside of the engineer's
> specialty, but that shouldn't place it outside his/her responsibility.
>
> The most fru-fru example I can think of right now would be a hood ornament 
> on a
> car. They exist, so it isn't invention or unseen possibility, but it is 
> pretty
> much pure 'form' and not much function. The engineer has as much reason to 
> find
> out if, or what kind of, ornament improves sales from a specialist as he 
> does
> to consult structural engineers for fender ideas or electrical engineers 
> for
> connectors and systems. Then, he applies the 'system' requirement of 
> maximizing
> sales (a requirement of any business or product) with engineering to 
> design an
> ornament that is consistent with other design goals (wind resistance 
> perhaps)
> and good practice for manufacturing and useful life.
>
> I've found that the engineers that seem to get told "design what we tell 
> you to
> inside the box" aren't very good at articulating why their views on the 
> rest of
> the box are relevant or impact the common goal.
>
> So, as an engineer, I value function with form, knowing that at least 
> where
> humans are involved (even human engineers) there are subtle efficiencies 
> to be
> had throughout the whole of the lifetime of whatever device or software I
> design that aren't 'just' form or function alone. I also benefit from 
> these
> efficiencies (even as an engineer) should I be the engineer who has to use 
> it.
>
>
> Peter Onion wrote:
>> On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 09:51 -0400, Dr Skip wrote:
>>
>> Probably because this list is mostly populated by engineers, who value
>> function over form :)
>>
>> PeterO
>>
>>
> -- 
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
> 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist