salvation through suffering philosophy

리치와 톰슨이 쓴 "The UNIX Time-Shaing System"논문을 읽어보다가, Perspective 부분에서 다음과 같은 부분을 발견하였습니다.

Three considerations which influenced the design of UNIX are
visible in retrospect.

First, since we are programmers, we naturally designed the
system to make it easy to write, test, and run programs. The
most important expression of our desire for programming
convenicence was that the system was arranged for interactive
use, even though the original version only supported only one
user. We beliebe that a properly-designed interactive system is
much more productive and saisfying to use than a "batch"
system. Moreover such a system is rather easily adaptable to
noninteractive use, while the converse is not true.

Second, there have always been fairly severe size constraints
on the system and its software. Given the partially
antagonistic desires for reasonable efficiency and expressive
power, the size constraint has encouraged not only economy but
a certain elegance of design. This may be a thinly disguised
version of the :evil: "salvation through suffering" philosophy, but in
our case it worked.

Third, nearly from the start, the system was able to, and did,
maintain itself. This fact is more important than it might
seem. If designers of a system were forced to use that system,
they quickly become aware of its functional and superficial
deficiencies and are strongly motivated to correct them before
it was too late. Since all source programs were always

첫번째와 두번째는 이해가 가는데, 두번째에서 무엇을 말하는지 잘 이해가 가질 않네요... 무척 함축적인 이야기긴 한거 같은데...

그냥 해석을 해보면 항상 system과 software에는 엄격한 size 제한이 있어왔다. 부분적으로 상반되는 효율과 파워의 요구가 주어질때 size 제한은 경제성뿐만아니라 세련된 디자인을 만들어 낸다. (요기까지는 size가 작으므로 여러가지로 좋다..라는 얘기로 들림) 이것은 "salvation through suffering-공급을 통한 구제" 철학의 얄팍한 속임수 버전일 수도 있다. 하지만, 우리의 경우 이것은 동작했다.???

이궁... 짧은 영어로 해석을 하긴 했는데... 도무지 어떤 철학을 논하는 것인지 모르겠습니다.