Simple Software Manifesto • Hacker News Board

Re: Simple Software Manifesto

#31

Post by adamsea » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 2:07 PM UTC

gerbilly wrote: post #21

Ugh, I don't share this sentiment. Each new generation of programmers creates new tools to replace the 'complex' ones that came before without even bothering to understand them. In my 25 year career I've seen it multiple times. We are all going downhill. Attention spans in the smartphone era might be preventing people from reading the f*ing manual. This means that any system or library which has an operating model th…

I would also add that the economic conditions of the software industry are stacked against endeavoring to master and use a complex and thus powerful and expressive system / library

Re: Simple Software Manifesto

#32

Post by spion » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 2:07 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #9

Every new generation of programmers starts a crusade to simplify without first trying to understand why we're not "simple" despite the previous generation having done the same. Of course, one possible explanation could be that without a constant crusade for simplicity we'd be in a far worse place; the "permanent revolution" explanation. But is this the right explanation? Turing Award winning computer scientist Fred B…

The real problem with software is that it's hard to change your mind once things are built on top of it. The real solution is to find a way that makes it easy to do this.

Complexity is one of the manifestations of this problem, but that doesn't mean that complexity cannot arise due to other reasons (i.e. essential vs incidental).

The answer is more along the line of better refactoring (or programming) tools, stronger type systems, better cross-program and whole system static checking etc.

Re: Simple Software Manifesto

#33

Post by naasking » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 2:08 PM UTC

fefe23 wrote: post #19

I have come to believe that we are dealing not with a domain specific problem but with the human condition itself. I call this my gradient theory. Consider human learning as an optimization in the mathematical sense. Note that humans are good at learning things along a gradient. Now note that this is not just about how the learning works but also how far we go. For example, if a human thinks it is too cold, they turn…

> If you find me a way to work with complexity, for example modularization, abstracting it away, etc., it will not lead to us writing a good version of the software we had before. It will lead us to writing larger software that will then again be at the limit of what we can do with the technology available.

So basically Parkinson's law applied to complexity rather than time. I think it's definitely true. More complex software is (ideally) more versatile, handles more cases of the problem domain, and so there's competitive pressure to make software as complex as is feasible to solve as many problem as possible, and thus, provide as much value as possible. The ceiling is exactly as you said: what level of complexity is manageable given the other constraints that must be satisfied (performance, robustness, etc.)?

Edit: to be clear, I mean "essential complexity" above, not accidental complexity from poor designs. Being able to handle more essential complexity is a good thing.

Re: Simple Software Manifesto

#34

Post by Jwarder » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 2:08 PM UTC

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #10

Don't #2 and #3 contradict? > Constraining the user to simple tools encourages creativity and allows the system to be more quickly understood > There is only one correct way to do something, because two ways would be more complex When you encourage creativity with combinations of simple tools, creative people will come up with multiple ways of doing things.

I read the "only one correct way" to be a per-tool guideline. When looking a tool to do a specific task then (ideally) the tool should just process input with minimal futzing with configuration options. If you need to do something special then you should have a special tool.

Re: Simple Software Manifesto

#35

Post by majewsky » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 2:09 PM UTC

> We target C99 or C11

C is anything but simple. It looks simple on the outside, then beats you to death with undefined behavior and either overexplicitness (if you don't use macros) or nested-macros hell (if you do). Their choice of C is routed more in the authors coming from the Unix community, not in their desire for simple software.

If anything, they should start with a truly simple programming language. Something like Go minus huge runtime and maybe plus basic generics.

Re: Simple Software Manifesto

#36

Post by gerbilly » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 2:09 PM UTC

ceautery wrote: post #6

nullspace wrote: post #3

> There is only one correct way to do something .... so take great care in doing it right the first time. I hear this a lot, in various contexts, and I even used say it a lot. But this has actually stopped making sense for me. I don’t think I’ve ever genuinely seen a case where there is only one obvious way to do something, or that there’s a way that is obviously the “right” way. Everything non-trivial is chock full…

I agree with you. If there is one correct way, then software writers are fungible, and software can be built with commodity parts. I don't think this is true. If it is, then we have an awful hard time finding correct ways; just look at how many sorting algorithms there are.

> If there is one correct way, then software writers are fungible

I don't believe that follows.

For example, there is one 'correct way' to unscramble a rubiks cube, but humans unscramble them in a much more roundabout manner.

Just because there is one correct way to do it doesn't imply that all rubiks cube solvers are fungible.

This is because of the very high cognitive load of finding the correct way.

Math, especially number theory, is full of conjectures that are easy to state but take hundreds of years to resolve, and at it's base computer science is math.

Re: Simple Software Manifesto

#37

Post by Koshkin » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 2:09 PM UTC

Porthos9K wrote: post #2

This reminds me of suckless. https://suckless.org/philosophy/

There is something weird about trying to put a layer of simple software on top of an astonishingly complex system kernel. (RiscOS, for example, looks more balanced in that regard.)

Re: Simple Software Manifesto

#38

Post by majewsky » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 2:11 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #9

Every new generation of programmers starts a crusade to simplify without first trying to understand why we're not "simple" despite the previous generation having done the same. Of course, one possible explanation could be that without a constant crusade for simplicity we'd be in a far worse place; the "permanent revolution" explanation. But is this the right explanation? Turing Award winning computer scientist Fred B…

> Of course, there needs to be a constant struggle not to over-complicate, but it should be done with the understanding that over-simplification is just as problematic.

I would like to differentiate simplification, aka "dumbing things down", from purification, which is finding the right frame of reference to enable a more compact representation of the necessary complexity. Purification is always highly desirable (unless it's just a facade used to make oversimplification more appealing).

The problem with purification is that you usually don't have the time to ruminate on your problem space for months.

Re: Simple Software Manifesto

#39

Post by zentiggr » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 2:11 PM UTC

gglitch wrote: post #25

pron wrote: post #9

Every new generation of programmers starts a crusade to simplify without first trying to understand why we're not "simple" despite the previous generation having done the same. Of course, one possible explanation could be that without a constant crusade for simplicity we'd be in a far worse place; the "permanent revolution" explanation. But is this the right explanation? Turing Award winning computer scientist Fred B…

I think that all else being equal, simplicity is to be preferred over complexity. You're pointing out that all else is never equal; ok, cool; but it's hard to imagine anyone finding value in deliberately complicating things. Simplicity seems to be an inherently valuable trait in system design/maintenance. Can you oversimplify? Sure. Does that justify not striving to reduce to the simplest functionally complete, scala…

> but it's hard to imagine anyone finding value in deliberately complicating things

Except for that special guru who writes The Framework for the company, because why not a Forth-based DSL for everyone to work in? Overblown, I know, but there are kitchen sink types, or those who just don't know that there's an easier way, and other reasons to wind up with too many tools or layers or libraries.

(I've been guilty of not knowing easier ways, so...)

Re: Simple Software Manifesto

#40

Post by fovc » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 2:12 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #9

Every new generation of programmers starts a crusade to simplify without first trying to understand why we're not "simple" despite the previous generation having done the same. Of course, one possible explanation could be that without a constant crusade for simplicity we'd be in a far worse place; the "permanent revolution" explanation. But is this the right explanation? Turing Award winning computer scientist Fred B…

Not sure which generation you're in and which generation you'd (relatively) consider Alan Key in, but here is a much more principled approach to what the OP is trying to do: https://youtu.be/NdSD07U5uBs

The TLDW is that Kay thinks we haven't discovered all the fundamental rules of computing, a la Maxwells Equations for physics. If you are able to figure these out, you can substantially cut down your accidental complexity.

FWIW, my unscientific view is that achieving simplicity is really hard and doesn't scale people-wise. Instead of C99 without a bunch of stuff, I'd probably use Scheme to create very dense (lots of bespoke abstractions and idioms) but simple software. That approach works reasonably well, but try onboarding a new developer!