>I realized that even armed with all the theory and context, the perfect system still remains a mythical creature. In other words - it doesn’t exist. I wouldn't go so far to say this. The perfect system does exist we just need to define it formally. This will take a long time and a lot of research but we can get there. Any time you hear the words "designing systems" it refers to some aspect of reality we don't unders…
Then it will turn into a consensus to define it. Probably will turn into C or C++ committees with ever changing goalposts. So in the end it will be back to square one but instead of the orginal issue it will be a layer up finding the perfect definitions. I think my supervisor summed it up best....there is nothing constant accept for change itself.
The theorems and axioms of geometry are consistent and evident. This is what I'm proposing. We must define the axiomatic notion of optimal program organization. There may be several metrics here but like the axioms of geometry we must pick something foundational. For example: the shortest distance between two points is a straight line is a foundational axiom chosen for Euclidean geometry.
Just like how Geometry, group theory or probability follows from a set of rules and axioms I foresee the possibility of such a thing happening for program organization.
> I think my supervisor summed it up best....there is nothing constant accept for change itself.
Your supervisors mind is clouded by the endless circle of redesign happening throughout the industry. He doesn't think above and beyond that. What is design? and what is optimal? are the questions he should ask. Sure everyone has their own opinion on what is "optimal" but at the same time everyone on the face of the earth agrees on some foundational concepts that optimality encompasses (including the trade offs). Therein is where the axioms of program organization lies. Somewhere within this universal agreement that nobody has really sought out to fully crystallize yet exists the formal theory of program organization.
We were able to formalize our notion of "luck" with probability. Probability is humanities universal agreement on the true nature of "chance" or "luck." Prior to probability luck and chance were fuzzy, qualitative and opinionated concepts that were ripe for formalization.
If we can formalize "luck" then we can do the same with how we organize logic.