beyond having very different philosophical views and backgrounds one of major differences between herbert simon and gilbert simondon is simply what sciences they were exposed to at formative parts of their lives

simondon never really talks about computers, most of his interests are really "analog" per se and are taken from things that broadly would be part of an electrical engineering and/or mechanical engineering curriculum.

i often imagine, when reading his books or books about him, simondon covered in grease underneath a stereotypically french mid-20th century automobile tuning the engines and such

simon on the other hand fell in love with the digital computer in his late 20s and never looked back, and though cybernetics and control concepts pervade his work he always saw the computer as both a mirror of the things he was interested in and the subject of his interest

the digital computer is, in some shape or form, the direct or indirect source of all of his ideas after 'administrative behavior' and his ACM lecture with Newell is the best example of how/why.

what's the significance? well, simon looks at the world through a view that is quite obviously that of a computer systems person: he sees the world as a collection of systems and subsystems and interface abstractions that allow systems to communicate with each other.

as yuk hui noted here, you can see a very big difference in simondon's fascination with, say, the functioning of a turbine http://www.digitalmilieu.net/documents/HUI_what%20is%20a%20digital%20object%20Metaphilosophy.pdf

its not that simon would necessarily *disagree* with the description of any of these objects, but that simon tends to emphasize the manner in which an artifact is shaped by its environment rather than the way in which artifact integrates environment into functioning

digital computers are, after all, able to at least superficially mimic any external thing of interest (albeit with inevitable limitations). the digital computer itself can become a military battlefield, an astronomical body, or a chemical reaction *in software*

so simon is very adamant that the behavior of the artifact is shaped by the external environment and the interface that produces the behavior is the bridge between the environment and the artifact's inner core (which need not resemble the outer environment)

analog computation on the other hand cannot make this assumption, all analog computers have to in some way incorporate a model of the underlying problem environment they are built for directly into their hardware organization. and simondon also tends to assume that

the function of artifacts is not as important as their process of development; two artifacts may have similar functions but entirely different histories of development and integration within their associated environments.

neither of these views are *wrong* per se but this is right about how even broadly similar ideas become dramatically different depending on whether they are represented as discrete or continuous systems https://twitter.com/mraginsky/status/1304795876913819648