4 ms·
> I am reluctant to believe someone has mastered simplicity until after they've mastered complexity, hence the complex interview does have value. While I buy t
by JadeNB 7y ago
> I am reluctant to believe someone has mastered simplicity until after they've mastered complexity, hence the complex interview does have value.
While I buy the premise, this seems like a strange conclusion. If a mastery of simplicity requires a mastery of complexity first, then testing for an ability to be simple tests for both kinds of knowledge, whereas testing for an ability to handle complexity tests only one–so what's the point?
- AlexCoventry 7y agoYou're generally not going to be able to write the simple code until you've found the right abstractions by writing the complicated code.
- WalterBright 7y agoI spend much time staring at code thinking there's got to be a simpler way. Sometimes I find one.
- JadeNB 7y agoI think that's my point: if you write the simple code, then you've probably demonstrated both that you can write complicated code, and that you can simplify it.
- AlexCoventry 7y agoMy point was that getting people to demonstrate facility with complex code is sensible because that's a prerequisite for writing novel simple code.
- toomuchtuna 7y agoI think you're over-indexing on the notion that someone has "mastered simplicity", when what's truly valuable is the ability to reduce that which is complex to something that is simple. Inherently, that requires the ability to grasp the complex, and so you interview by presenting something that is complex, and judge based on the simplicity of the solution.
- JadeNB 7y agoI like very much the 'over-indexing' terminology. I agree that I may be improperly confusing the ability to write simple code with the ability to solve simple problems.