the fact that its work just fine falsify this claim.
I have explained in detail how that is simply not true.
I can design 2 products that have the exact same function and performance, while one will have an objectively better design then the other.
It's not even difficult.
It terms of software, all I would have to do is write 2 identical programs and the include a bunch of dead code in one but not the other.
The active code in both will be identical. But one program will take up more disk space and its overall build up will be very bad, simply because of the presense of the dead code.
The end user? He won't notice any difference in execution at all.
This completely refutes your nonsense on this point.
but you are welcome to believe otherwise.
I don't believe this. I
know this.
And I know it very very well.
At my company, we have a bunch of interns every year.
As the intern team leader, the professors always ask me to grade their work. The work itself: being the code, the architecture, etc.
I actually flunked a guy once, while his project worked perfectly. I'm not joking.
The guy got everything working and in terms of
usability, it was just fine. Performance was very okay, UI design was okay and all functional requirements were present. From the perspective of the user, this project should have gotten 18/20.
I gave him 11/20 (below 60% is considered "failing" in Belgian colleges and universities)
Because his code was hidious. He didn't use a specific design pattern, while it was obviously needed. Instead, he worked out his own "solution", wich ended up in a complete spaghetti of procedure calls. The code also wasn't refactored... I encountered several methods that exceeded 500 lines of code. Class, Method and variable naming was also very bad. And many more such problems. "code smells" everywhere.
But the program worked exactly like asked. And I flunked him, because of the bad design.
He ended up passing with 12/20. The professors felt that he deserved to pass because the project worked. With a grin on my face, I told them "
that's why you guys are teachers instead of professional programmers...."
you arent a creature engineer and this is a big difference.
No, the principles of what constitutes a "good" design, stays the same.
A good design is elegant, simple, efficient,...
Biological designs "work". But they are not efficient, elegant, simple,...
There's an inumerable amount of stuff in biology that an actual designer would have done a LOT better.
because you cant. if it was so easy to do so you were already do that.
Once more: I don't need to be able to design X, to recognise that the design of X is good or if it could be better. It's actually quite easy to spot "bad design".
so lets see. here is one example:
according to your criteria this is a bad design since its seems to be very odd to put a wheel in this part of the car. (image from wiki)
/facepalm
