Well, I must say I sincerely appreciate the candor and commitment that Shumacher brings to this dialogue online (if not what at times reads as unnecessary bombast in the original text). I hope that he stays with it, because this is an unusual opportunity to address a persistent gap in discussions around parametrically-driven design practice. What for me is often troubling, aside from a robust technophilia that I see in much discussion of parametric design practices, is the glaring lack of discussion of parameters themselves.
What are the parameters of consequence today? What matters, and at what service is geometry beyond its capacities for adaptation to diverse conditions?
If we accept Schumacher's assertions about style and Parametricism - which to my mind still rely uncomfortably on optimization of processes (albeit new kinds of optimization, still a faith in absolutes) - we are more beholden than ever to assert what are the parameters by which to evaluate results. An example: Shumacher rightly and evenly points out a difference from use of Twitter, but ours is a built environment marked more and more by interaction with embedded forms of computing. These produce new protocols of movement and understandings of boundary, of material culture, of so much that would be uneasy to parametricize according to current thinking. How are we to welcome in the vital role of these and other fault lines in our conception of space?