Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Danger of “Simplicity”

asthasr.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 172 posts

Re: The Danger of “Simplicity”

#11

Post by frou_dh »

mbrock wrote: post #6
ftvy wrote: post #2

TFA seems to build upon confusion of how "simplicity" is defined. It's easier to compare it against "complexity" which is the sum of parts; e.g. a complex machine, so "simplicity" must be attributed to an atomic design of "the smallest part which cannot be broken any further"; i.e. think of a simple machine like a lever.

I think Ousterhout’s pragmatic definition of complexity is the best one when discussing actual code bases: complexity is anything that makes the system hard to change, taking into account how often the relevant part needs to change.

Hard to change is subjective. Maybe something you found hard to change, your colleague would have no trouble with. And vice versa.

Re: The Danger of “Simplicity”

#12

Post by codingdave »

The quote of "If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter" has been quoted so often that it is arguable who said it first, but it is definitely at least a 300+ year old concept.

Simplicity takes effort. It takes time. And you often cannot write simple software in the first version because you are designing it as you go. Simplicity comes from maturity both in the product design and the development staff, and is a long term goal.

It is not something that you achieve by critiquing individual PRs, but by insightful long-term thought into how to solve your problem with your code, and many refactors over time.

It is wise strive for simplicity in all code you write, but wiser to have the patience to let it develop over the lifecycle of your product.

Re: The Danger of “Simplicity”

#13

Post by cuddlecake »

blondin wrote: post #8
ds_ wrote: post #5

"Simple is often erroneously mistaken for easy. 'Easy' means 'to be at hand', 'to be approachable'. 'Simple' is the opposite of 'complex' which means 'being intertwined', 'being tied together'" - https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy/

wouldn't say simple is the opposite of complex though? especially when talking about software systems or other systems in general. what i am thinking is that some complex systems can be made of very simple components. the best example is our complex brain being made of simpler components working together. maybe the opposite of complex is chaotic? i don't know...

I imagine that a software system that is made of simple components can still be complex. So I'd still go for simple vs complex

Re: The Danger of “Simplicity”

#14

Post by ajdegol »

blondin wrote: post #8
ds_ wrote: post #5

"Simple is often erroneously mistaken for easy. 'Easy' means 'to be at hand', 'to be approachable'. 'Simple' is the opposite of 'complex' which means 'being intertwined', 'being tied together'" - https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy/

wouldn't say simple is the opposite of complex though? especially when talking about software systems or other systems in general. what i am thinking is that some complex systems can be made of very simple components. the best example is our complex brain being made of simpler components working together. maybe the opposite of complex is chaotic? i don't know...

Simple systems can indeed be made of complex components; however it is a measure of interconnectedness. The key concept is that we can only hold a finite amount of complexity in our heads at any one time, and so if we can minimise that we can be more efficient and effective.

The analogy is a lego castle vs a wool castle. A lego brick is very simple and contained, and from this you can build wonderful structures; in addition if you wish to change out a portion it is easy to do because changing on part of the system (i.e. implementation) doesn't affect the rest so long as the contract between components is maintained.

Contrasting: should you pull on a thread in a wool castle it will affect other parts of the castle. A lot of software is like this, which makes it very hard to reason about.

Re: The Danger of “Simplicity”

#15

Post by nessunodoro »

codingdave wrote: post #12

The quote of "If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter" has been quoted so often that it is arguable who said it first, but it is definitely at least a 300+ year old concept. Simplicity takes effort. It takes time. And you often cannot write simple software in the first version because you are designing it as you go. Simplicity comes from maturity both in the product design and the development staff,…

"Making things simple is hard work." - Rich Hickey

When I think of the simple vs complex bifurcation I think of fractals, a "simple" set of rules expressed in a complex way. The complexity arises from their expression/expansion iterated over time, but the rules that govern that expression are economical and compact. Think of an acorn: the encoding of a tree is all there. Its self-similarity, recusively expressed, creates the complex output of a tree. But nature always prefers the most economical solution because in the physical universe, resources are limited.

It might make more sense to s/simple/economical/.

Re: The Danger of “Simplicity”

#18

Post by leggomylibro »

ds_ wrote: post #5

"Simple is often erroneously mistaken for easy. 'Easy' means 'to be at hand', 'to be approachable'. 'Simple' is the opposite of 'complex' which means 'being intertwined', 'being tied together'" - https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy/

I had a math teacher in primary school who used to shout with an exaggerated accent, "simple is not the same as easy!" She really wanted to drill the idea into our heads that just because you know exactly how to do something, doesn't mean that it will be quick or easy to accomplish.

Like, for a schoolchild, long division. The rules are simple, but given big enough numbers you'll probably mess up at least once. And then the same thing turns out to be true with algebra, geometry, derivation/integration, and on. It's not a bad mantra.

Re: The Danger of “Simplicity”

#19

Post by rob74 »

frou_dh wrote: post #11
mbrock wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Ousterhout’s pragmatic definition of complexity is the best one when discussing actual code bases: complexity is anything that makes the system hard to change, taking into account how often the relevant part needs to change.

Hard to change is subjective. Maybe something you found hard to change, your colleague would have no trouble with. And vice versa.

Yeah, some colleagues have absolutely no trouble changing any code... and then it starts breaking for some edge cases that they weren't aware of :D

Re: The Danger of “Simplicity”

#20

Post by starbugs »

I don’t think it’s a good idea to introduce complexity to the definition of simplicity and I think this is what the author is trying to do.

It’s completely backwards. The whole point of calling for simplicity is to make you think about whether there is a simpler way to express yourself that still solves the problem at hand. This might be a hard task, but it’s not a complex one.

Post reply on HN