Subject:
|
Re: Space stations?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Jan 2000 01:05:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6935 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Matthew Miller writes:
> Z <leahy@concentric.net> wrote:
> > While modules aren't designed for any particular setup, the space stations
> > designed and built as one unit are designed so that certain components
> > function with certain other components. Such specific design results in a
> > better functioning space station, and certainly a better looking one.
>
> Well-designed modules can produce a better whole than a designed-as-a-lump
> one, for a complicated-enough system. This is why object-oriented
> programming is so popular. Or why networking protocols are thought of as
> layers.
>
>
>
> --
> Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
> Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Nonetheless, the modular stuff is structurally weaker, and UGLIER than that
which is designed as one. I don't ever build modular stations, due to such
things.
Z
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Space stations?
|
| (...) But think about how you'd build a _real_ space station. Wouldn't a modular design make sense? I understand where you're coming from on the ugliness point. Modular designs tend to look very functional and mechanical. (But that can have it's own (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Space stations?
|
| (...) Well-designed modules can produce a better whole than a designed-as-a-lump one, for a complicated-enough system. This is why object-oriented programming is so popular. Or why networking protocols are thought of as layers. (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
|
94 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
