I'm having a hard time understanding what you've written. The design sense as opposed to what? At the inception of what? What are "modern sensibilities" of an individual as opposed to a culture?

In any case, there's no such thing as "timeless design" in computing, as it's evolving far too fast. Does timeless design mean interfaces that rely on keyboards but not mice? Or mice but not trackpads? Or trackpads but not touchscreens?

The term Modernism came from the art world. If I see it used I assume we are discussing the values that defined modernism.

I have doubts that there are are no timeless designs in computing.

The term "modern" under discussion in this article has nothing to do with Modernism in the art world. It's just the regular dictionary and marketing sense.

What would you suggest is a timeless design in computing, then? That we can see holding up as an ideal solution in 1975, 1995, 2015, and today? Because I honestly can't even think of one, and I'm genuinely trying.

I mean, there are basic principles of "don't repeat yourself" and organizing code into functions, but those aren't aspects of design.

The first one I thought of was Claude Shanon’s contribution to computing and the second was expressed even earlier by Charles Babbage.

One can disagree but but it’s the differences that shed light on things.

I don’t think you are equipped to discuss design so I will leave it here.

> I don’t think you are equipped to discuss design so I will leave it here.

Please don't be insulting. I could just as easily say the same about you -- I can't imagine anyone talking about Shannon's contributions as falling in the category of design -- but please let's not make things personal.