4 ms·

I think you mix the meanings of simple and easy here. Simplicity is an absolute metric and describes the number of dependencies a thing has, while ease is a rel

I think you mix the meanings of simple and easy here. Simplicity is an absolute metric and describes the number of dependencies a thing has, while ease is a relative metric describing your understanding of said thing. For example, a singleton is easy to learn and easy to use, but since every function using it adds a hidden dependency it quickly grows in complexity to the point its impossible to reason about it without forgetting something. On the other hand, a Promise is simple as it depends on nothing but a producer and a consumer, no matter how much you compose them. Yet I've seen many experienced developers struggle to learn how to use them as they're not easy to understand at first. This is somewhat related to meta ignorance. From my own experience I've seen a tendency in novice programmers to stick with things which are both easy to learn and use. Their projects go well initially but they grow less and less productive over time as complexity creeps in from the composition of all these easy to use things. I've always said experience in our industry is knowing what not to use in order to stay productive in the long run. Here's a link to Rich Hickey explaining it in depth: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Speaking of meta, I absolutely loathe how the basic distinction between simplicity and ease of use has since become a meme so persistently associated with Rich Hickey. There is nothing I can really do about it, but it nonetheless annoys me to no end.
- jeremiep 11y ago
  I myself learned it from Rich in the very talk I linked to a few years ago and I'm the first to admit I didn't make that distinction beforehand. I've met more developers unaware of the distinction than otherwise, which is why I'm curious as to why you think it has become a meme? Also note that english isn't my first language (I'm french Canadian) and even here in french the distinction is seldom made.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    In colloquial English, no. The distinction between two main types of simplicity, those of parsimony and elegance, has been a long-standing philosophical topic [1]. In engineering, the so-called KISS principle (first coined as such in the early 20th century) has always had the implication of minimalism and implementation simplicity, in contrast to mere ease of use. Fred Brooks wrote a famous paper in 1986 [2] perfectly describing the differences between accidental and essential complexity, and of the semantics of complexity management in software projects. Hickey has said absolutely nothing spectacular, but his name comes up every time from the typing fingers of the historically illiterate whenever simplicity and ease of use are brought up. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/ [2] http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~cah/G51ISS/Documents/NoSilverBullet.html http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~cah/G51ISS/Documents/NoSilverBulle...
    - jeremiep 11y ago
      Thanks for the precision, definitely puts it all into perspective! I knew about KISS, but almost every time I hear someone mention it they think about ease not simplicity. I will also definitely check out Brooks' paper. While I understand your position, I believe a lot of this has been lost to the new generations of engineers and what Rich did is remind them of it.
    - stdbrouw 11y ago
      I dunno, people use the same kind of argument to say that nobody's really done anything new in philosophy since Kant or even Aristotle. The KISS principle is not the same as a distinction between simplicity and ease. Accidental vs. essential complexity is orthogonal to simplicity vs. ease. And parsimony and elegance are both about simplicity rather than ease. Some people can be a little bit too historically literate for their own good.
    - dasil003 11y ago
      "historically illiterate" are pretty strong words. Actually everyone is historically illiterate by these standards because the ideas that any one person is familiar with is a vanishingly small percentage of all the ideas the human race has ever had. Furthermore, the origins of ideas are impossible to trace with any great precision. Is the most famous person the person with the best ideas? Was the person with access to the printing press the person with the best ideas? Frankly it strikes me as a form of intellectual hipsterism to be bothered so much by this. Rich Hickey gained fame for this because he stated an idea very clearly and compellingly, this is non-trivial and should not be so flippantly dismissed as just recyling old ideas—all your ideas are recycled too. https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

Speaking of meta, I absolutely loathe how the basic distinction between simplicity and ease of use has since become a meme so persistently associated with Rich Hickey. There is nothing I can really do about it, but it nonetheless annoys me to no end.

jeremiep 11y ago
I myself learned it from Rich in the very talk I linked to a few years ago and I'm the first to admit I didn't make that distinction beforehand. I've met more developers unaware of the distinction than otherwise, which is why I'm curious as to why you think it has become a meme? Also note that english isn't my first language (I'm french Canadian) and even here in french the distinction is seldom made.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  In colloquial English, no. The distinction between two main types of simplicity, those of parsimony and elegance, has been a long-standing philosophical topic [1]. In engineering, the so-called KISS principle (first coined as such in the early 20th century) has always had the implication of minimalism and implementation simplicity, in contrast to mere ease of use. Fred Brooks wrote a famous paper in 1986 [2] perfectly describing the differences between accidental and essential complexity, and of the semantics of complexity management in software projects. Hickey has said absolutely nothing spectacular, but his name comes up every time from the typing fingers of the historically illiterate whenever simplicity and ease of use are brought up. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/ [2] http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~cah/G51ISS/Documents/NoSilverBullet.html http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~cah/G51ISS/Documents/NoSilverBulle...
  - jeremiep 11y ago
    Thanks for the precision, definitely puts it all into perspective! I knew about KISS, but almost every time I hear someone mention it they think about ease not simplicity. I will also definitely check out Brooks' paper. While I understand your position, I believe a lot of this has been lost to the new generations of engineers and what Rich did is remind them of it.
  - stdbrouw 11y ago
    I dunno, people use the same kind of argument to say that nobody's really done anything new in philosophy since Kant or even Aristotle. The KISS principle is not the same as a distinction between simplicity and ease. Accidental vs. essential complexity is orthogonal to simplicity vs. ease. And parsimony and elegance are both about simplicity rather than ease. Some people can be a little bit too historically literate for their own good.
  - dasil003 11y ago
    "historically illiterate" are pretty strong words. Actually everyone is historically illiterate by these standards because the ideas that any one person is familiar with is a vanishingly small percentage of all the ideas the human race has ever had. Furthermore, the origins of ideas are impossible to trace with any great precision. Is the most famous person the person with the best ideas? Was the person with access to the printing press the person with the best ideas? Frankly it strikes me as a form of intellectual hipsterism to be bothered so much by this. Rich Hickey gained fame for this because he stated an idea very clearly and compellingly, this is non-trivial and should not be so flippantly dismissed as just recyling old ideas—all your ideas are recycled too. https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/