>This title is misleading. The post actually says that the reason "simple" comes first is because without it you can't have "correct" (nor "fast", not that that

>This title is misleading. The post actually says that the reason "simple" comes first is because without it you can't have "correct" (nor "fast", not that that matters so much). So he's not saying simple is most _important_, just that it comes first chronologically, and has the other two as consequences. If that's what he meant, he's flat wrong. Simplicity is neither necessary nor sufficient for correctness.