Futurist Programming 2.2

No Compromise, No Waste Programming

The program is the BEST at what it does
The program is FAST
The footprint is SMALL
The code is CLEAR
The program is as BUG-FREE
Abstractions must SIMPLIFY
The unnecessary is ELIMINATED

NO COMPROMISES in the name of Extensibility, Modularity, Structured Programming, Reusable Code, Top Down Design, Standards, Object Oriented Design, or Agility.

Version 2.1

This entry was written by admin, posted on 8 May 2008 at 12:13 am, filed under Art, Code. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

itjob123

thanks for information
meshula

In order to reject the past, the futurist must properly understand what is being rejected. I refer you to Lebbeus Woods' essay on one of the primal Futurists, Antonio Sant'Elia.

http://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/santelias-words/

Despite Sant'Elias' protestations it is evident that his constructions are grounded in classical from and proportion.

I refer you also to Watterson's Calvin & Hobbes, or Schultz' Charlie Brown. Despite the apparent simplicity of their art, Watterson and Schultz are fine classical artists. Their mastery of classical form allowed them to simplify their work to radical elegant gesture.

So I contend that a good Futurist Programmer is altogether aware of all the reasons and precedents behind a choice.
Brian Royal

Aras' idealogy is what produces opaque source, reduced scalability and larger footprints, even if the resulting executable is effective, it will never be as tight as code written with at least an appreciation of the mistakes of our predecessors.

My impression of futurist programming is that futurists are actually rebirth programmers who are too lazy to study a little bit of the past.
leyond

null
admin

Traceback: http://aras-p.info/blog/2008/05/09/on-job-titles-and-design-patterns/
Aras writes It’s the final result that matters. Futurist programming for the win.