Bob Braden wrote:
*>
*> In other words, that is why the Net never was and resists being be a
homogeneous
*> network. It would be a less efficient design.
But the lesson of the Internet is that efficiency is not the primary
consideration. Ability to grow and adapt to changing requirements is
the primary consideration. This makes simplicity and uniformity
very precious indeed.
Is this now a semantic discussion? Ok, if you want to go than that slope,
what I call "efficient design" of course includes "to grow and adapt to changing
requirements," "simplicity" and "uniformity". Because "efficient" is all
these and more -- efficient is "productive without waste" (Webster).
BTW, a design that is too simple is not efficient, because it wastes resources
and does not allow what could otherwise be possible. This is the other side of
Ockham's razor, when all possibilities are tried in order to find the best one,
not just the simplest one.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
Bob Braden