Comment by roryokane | Hacker News Reader

Comment by roryokane | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I very much disagree with this: “Look what happened with the 911. It's so obviously superior to the Cadillac that a child could tell it's better.”

I performed an experiment when I read this article, comparing the two cars based on just the pictures. I had read the paragraph after the pictures, about telling good design from bad design, but not the paragraph before, saying that what each model of car was designed for. And I tried to compare the design of the cars based on just the pictures, seriously. At first, I thought that the 911 might be better because it is more aerodynamic, a criterion that it is objectively better at. But then I noticed that the Cadillac has more headlights in the front, which possibly might provide better light. And I saw that the Cadillac seemed to be a convertible, which is more a matter of taste and your goals for a car. I concluded that both cars seemed pretty decent in their own way. Thus, I was surprised to read the claim that the 911 has obviously superior design to the Cadillac.

Perhaps Paul Graharm is right about language design, but this failure of his claim to withstand an experiment lessens my confidence that he has examined the evidence before making his conclusion. Though as I am, in my opinion, a “good programmer”, I certainly hope he that is right, and that languages aimed at good programmers are the ones whose ideas will become popular in time.

I think he's referring more to the visual aesthetic. The 911 is literally timeless, because the broad strokes of the shape have been nearly unchanged in the past 40 years, and it's still one of the most beautiful and lusted after cars on the road. The Cadillac looks ugly.

I have always hated the design of the Porsche. As a kid I was so surprised to learn that this was the famous "Porsche" I had heard so much about. I am not a car guy, and thus perhaps my opinion doesn't matter, but I can at least understand the visual appeal of a Lamborghini or a BMW. Or perhaps put a better way, I can at least see what they're going for. With a Porsche, I'm just kind of reminded of a smart car. Its so tiny and stumpy that it looks ridiculous and straight out of the 80s to me. I actually start considering the fact that it only has two seats (as opposed to most sports cars which I usually forget when just looking at it). It neither looks fast nor classy, I just don't get it. Also, to me it doesn't look timeless, it just looks old. When I see a new one I imagine a scene from an 80s wallstreet movie or something.

The 911 was designed in the 1960s, the one displayed is from 1973. The reason the design is iconic is that the car is rear engined which gives it the unique characteristics of driving and style. It also allows for an aerodynamic profile while still having 4 seats. Having a horizontally opposed sir cooled engine also keeps both weight, cost and centre of gravity low, giving better handling, efficiency and mileage.

By the 1980s the design was quite dated but still popular because of the reputation of the car.

The reason pg probably picked the car was because the form followed the functions, it was designed rather than styled.

Same here. 911 to me is an acquired taste. I can appreciate their design now, especially the recent iterations but I remember I said it looked like a squashed frog with bulgy eyes when I first saw one as a kid.

"Mere exposure" effect. "Social proof". Anything long-loved and popular becomes attractive.

Also happens with people's faces. A person who at first might appear ugly I've found gets better looking the more you see them. They don't become good looking or anything but appear less ugly.

And sometimes you fall in love instantly. Happened for me with the 911 and the Countach, without me knowing that they were expensive.

Yes, but it is fair to say the design evolved nicely, to the point of "looking good" rather than "weird-good".

Meh, I've always liked the smooth shape. I also love the look of the much boxier and more aggressive looking Ferarri Testarossa and Lamborghini Countach, but I think they look much more dated than even the 73 911. Design always has some elements of personal preference, of course.

This whole thing is such a logical fallacy I can't pick one name for it. How about fundamentally privileging the survivor hypothesis effect bias?

If the 911 turned out to look shit or be unfashionable, they would have changed the styling/stopped making it completely, like most cars from the 70s.

On the other hand, maybe it is still fashionable because they still make it? After all, generally what expert designers say is fashionable, is fashionable.

On the gripping hand, so? Maybe the turnover of style in a niche (sportscar vs mass-market) is slower (as you would expect given fast fashion and volume of play). That does not mean that niche is any better designed, only that bad design takes longer to be recognised and/or fashion tastes change slower.

I don't think he's referring to the visual aesthetic. I went through what the parent comment describes and kept re-reading these lines to guess what pg meant: "The Cadillac was carefully designed to appeal to the average driver. The 911 was designed for performance. Which one is better design?". I concluded that he did not mean visual design but instead meant some notion of "overall design" that included both visual appeal and performance, and did not state how he defined the term.

And then I read "It's so obviously superior to the Cadillac that a child could tell it's better" and decided that either he's bullshitting or my design sense is non-existent.

I performed an experiment too.

The 7.5 year old and the 6 year old both claimed the red one is "better".

It isn't actually a convertible. Rather, the soft roof is just a particularly American design affectation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com