[Geminidog]

But you can. The separation is critical to the entire computing industry. The entire reason why higher level programming languages exist is to separate the form (assembly) from function.

Usually there are "costs" to doing this and much engineering work is done to reduce this cost as much as possible. Either way, what you say is categorically wrong. Separating form and function is not a "mistake" given that it is so fundamental to the entire industry.

[taeric]

Ah, but I would argue those are better described as form and function being part of the designs. Done wholistic, it is why the new apple hardware is able to take some very impressive gains.

You can argue that some interfaces are separate products from the services. I agree with that. But each has its design and each is targeted on form and function to something.

That is, you don't separate them. You make a new product, that has its own form and function.

[Geminidog]

My remark is based on what you said. You called the separation of form and function a "mistake" and I said this is categorically wrong. My statement still stands, you have not addressed it.

I neither agree or disagree with your remark about "Wholistic" designs but your example is extremely inapt.

The entire MacOS is programmed using a an interface separate from function. If they didn't program the Operating system in a higher level language that can be compiled into separate architectures then the move to ARM would be an even more complex engineering maneuver. The entire reason why Apple was able to move to new hardware without completely rewriting the software is because Form and Function are separated.

[taeric]

My address of it is that things don't separate to distinct things, often. They, instead, made new forms that have their functions. Or vice versa, if you want.

This is true for content as much as services. In simplistic cases, you can point at something and say "there is the content." Often, though, you cannot. The distinction between the two is a huge blur.

You are bringing up, essentially, that abstractions can be layered. I agree with that, with each layer having is own forms for its functions.

Applied to the example here. I am not saying they are identical. I'm saying that they are best considered together. Such that our industry typically passes the buck on UI and UX, to the detriment of everything.

[Geminidog]

No. I am bringing up the fact that form and function are always separated in our industry and that this is fundamental to the entire industry making your initial statement categorically wrong.

It's obvious that abstractions have costs and it's obvious that sometimes things are designed holistically. But these obvious things are off topic. The point here is that your initial statement is completely and utterly wrong wrong wrong.

Please stay on topic. Are you still claiming your initial statement is right? or are you now claiming it's wrong? Don't change the topic into the industry "passing the buck to UI and UX" this is not your initial statement.

[taeric]

My opening statement is short, so I'm assuming some charity in reading it. My complaint is the idea that you can make a hard distinction between function and pass that to another layer is a huge mistake in our industry. As noted by us conversing in a web browser. :)

Are they separate things? I mean, yeah. But they interplay with each other such that near every attempt to force them apart is full of ugly edge cases such that I assert we would benefit from people seeing that form and function typically work together in building things that work.

[Geminidog]

>My opening statement is short, so I'm assuming some charity in reading it. My complaint is the idea that you can make a hard distinction between function and pass that to another layer is a huge mistake in our industry. As noted by us conversing in a web browser. :)

Ok, so you are basically implying that your opening statement is wrong and what you meant to say is that abstractions do not have zero costs and that the industry is unaware of this. Just admit you're wrong instead of relying on the political stratagems used by "architects" to stay relevant.

I would argue that everyone is fully aware of this concept. It's a necessary evil done to reduce complexity otherwise we would all be programming in assembly language. As for AWS specifically, isn't it proof of what you say? The technical details are leaking into the interface showing that function and form can't be fully separated.

If you're saying the architecture of AWS should have been holistically designed to support a more intuitive interface, I would say you're describing another problem all together. A holistic design is a synonym for "waterfall," and there's a good reason why it's avoided in the industry.

The problem with waterfall is that the current needs of the market is always a moving target. No architect or even UI/UX designer can predict the needs of the market in the future thus things are continuously put together agile style (aka ad hoc). This produces technical debt which is something neither Architect nor the UX/UI designer can solve. AWS definitely suffers from some debt and the UI reflects this, but again, this is NOT because they lack "architects" as every company has this problem whether or not the company has "architects."