Rather from almost 30 years of experience in professional software development.This is where your mind-boggling, incomprehensible talent for demagogy kicks in again! Which hypothetical assumptions are you talking about? Have you no shame - to pull such empty, unsupported statements right out of your a$$?
I never, ever have contradicted programming discipline and good structure, it purely your imagination. But neither good structure, nor best of best programing discipline does not guarantee elegance. It seems that you forgot one word in the elegance definition "Elegance is the attribute of being unusually effective and simple."is supposed to make me believe that it is safer and more practical to forgo programming discipline and good structure in favor of all-in-a-big-pile applications with no "basic assumptions", whatever the hell that means?
And this unusually makes all of the difference.
To reach it you have to go out of ordinary, often way out of ordinary, otherwise it would be good, professional, stable, manageable (you name it) solution, but not elegant one.
It should not mean it, but for wast majority of peoples it means, sorry, look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_design - it accurately reflects mass consciousness in SW development. And compare it with general meaning of Design here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design.No! The word "Design" in the English language - as well as in Software Engineering - does not mean "Documentation".
Yes, I 100% agree with you that it is misuse of word, but it is long established misuse.
No way, you have to give up this hopeBut, I am sure you'd be happy to school me on the English language as well...
I dare to say that you employ this technique to much greater extent that I do.Or, you provide your own inaccurate interpretation of what the other person is saying, and argue with that, and so on...
Disciplined approach - for sure, as I have said many times I'm 100% on your side on this matter, but it is not enough for elegance, sorry. Such approach (together with careful thinking) may bring simple and effective solution - but not necessarily (and even likely) unusually simple and effective.And vouch for a disciplined approach that promotes elegance and minimizes complexity.
Yes, for your own use you need not such definitions, but as soon as you start to explain them to others you have to provide such definitions to have a chance to be understand properly (and even then "Does not matter how clear you explain something, anyway somebody would misunderstand you" ).I don't need to have a rigid definition of what all these concepts are.
Rather on your own (while pretty good) sense.I define them based on common sense.