How old are you Rich ?   Fru-Fru haas always been a favourite of mine.
Great comment, Doctor S.
cc

> On Mar 31, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Rich wrote:
> 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
>
>
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist