"Correct" should, by definition, imply simple and fast. "Simple" tends to be the correct and fastest way to code. Code that runs fast might not be the "simple",

"Correct" should, by definition, imply simple and fast. "Simple" tends to be the correct and fastest way to code. Code that runs fast might not be the "simple", but simple code will be the debugged/updated/ported the fastest. I think the author is saying this, but with a more controversial headline (and, intentional or not, controversy creates clicks). After all, this is the premise: The reason is straightforward: if your solution is not simple, it will not be correct or fast. This could be reworded in the following ways and the points made in the article would still follow: If your solution is not correct, it won't be simple or fast. If your solution is not fast, it won't be simple or correct.