3 ms·
Simplicity cannot be a goal in itself. Is the dashboard of a F35 worse than the dashboard of a car -- because it's less simple? It's the same thing with program
by theaeolist 7y ago
Simplicity cannot be a goal in itself. Is the dashboard of a F35 worse than the dashboard of a car -- because it's less simple? It's the same thing with programs and programming languages. Computers are universal devices, they can be F35s or just basic cars. The important thing is 'fit for purpose', which is more elusive and not so amenable to simplistic ideological statements.
- chasd00 7y agoi can't remember the author but there was a disucssion on usenet about comm. protocols years ago and someone said "it's not finished when there's nothing left to add, it's finished when there's nothing left to take away". To me, that's what simple means and i think it also equally applies to "fit for purpose". A perfect fit for purpose is an implementation with nothing left to take away. I feel like when you someone sees a perfect fit for purpose they would also think "this is really simple" whether it be an F-35 dashboard, nuclear reactor control room, or the controls on a lawn mower. edit: after thinking about this for a few min. there's larger than normal holes in my point heh. However, i really like OPs point.