Re: The Promise of Forth

JK wrote:
> Paul E. Bennett wrote:
> 
>> Only those who think complex problems demand complex solutions think
that
>> way. By all accounts this is a large number.
> 
> I find statements like this curious.  If you have a "complex" problem,
> and there exists a simple solution, then in what sense is the problem
> complex?
> 
> If you mean that problems that *appear* complex can have simple
> solutions, then I agree.  When such problems are analyzed insightfully,
> the apparent complexities vanish and a simple solution becomes apparent
> -- but in these cases the form of the solution causes us to realize that
> the original problem was *not* complex.
> 
> IOW it seems to me that the level of complexity required in a
> solution is as good a definition as any of the complexity of
> the problem.

Chuck Moore once suggested the Law of Conservation of Complexity:

A given problem has an intrinsic level of complexity.

If you attack it "brute force" you'll probably come up with an 
unnecessarily complex solution.

If you invest careful design thought up front, you may be able to 
construct an apparently simple solution (having invested come complexity 
in the thought process).

Over time, the second approach will be least costly and more satisfactory.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310-491-3356
5155 W. Rosecrans Ave. #1018  Fax: +1 310-978-9454
Hawthorne, CA 90250
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================