7 ms·

Simple Made Easy (2011)

133 points by BerislavLopac 6y ago

stonemetal12 6y ago
Wow it has been close to a decade since then. Is there a simple made Easy 2? He presents a number of grandiose ideas, it would be interesting to see what he thinks he got right and what went off the rails.
- wellpast 6y ago
  That’s precisely what this is, including what he got right &c — “10 Years of Clojure” https://youtu.be/2V1FtfBDsLU https://youtu.be/2V1FtfBDsLU
- Scarbutt 6y ago
  He indirectly recognized the importance of declaring the shape of data 6 years later by introducing spec, which to date still has big issues and screams "just use a proper statically typed language".
  - lukashrb 6y ago
    Everytime I read your name, you subtile spread some negativity :) Maybe Hickey just didn't prioritized "types" as high as some other ideas to spend his time on. And in my opinion he focused on the right things and achieved something really great. As general advice stay positiv, focus on the things you like instead of telling everyone what you don't like, it's better for your mental health ;)
  - iLemming 6y ago
    There's no "proper statically typed language." Every single statically typed language I tried, comes with certain drawbacks. However, I'd like to add - I do miss sometimes static types in dynamic langs, including Clojure. Bottom line - there are truly no silver bullets. That's why we keep inventing new programming languages and new paradigms. But of course, once we pick up one "religion," we feel compelled to yell at others: "you're doing it wrong!"
  - dgb23 6y ago
    > spec, which to date still has big issues and screams "just use a proper statically typed language" I think this statement is unfair. I don't think there is a widely used statically typed language that is nearly as expressive and simple as spec. Also the opt-in nature of it retains the advantages of dynamic typing.
dgb23 6y ago
All of the Rich Hickey talks I watched (there are many!) are insightful and entertaining. He manages to talk about technical things on a abstract, sometimes philosophical level. I even re-watched some talks after a couple of years and got something new out of them. One of the most entertaining ones I watched was "Spec-ulation". It is less general than some of the more shared/cited ones but really funny.
- leetrout 6y ago
  Anyone else interested it is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyLBGkS5ICk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyLBGkS5ICk
pansa2 6y ago
Fantastic talk, covering the difference between “simple” and “easy”, and how (when you can’t have both) the former is preferable. I find it interesting that Python, despite being widely described as a simple language, takes the opposite approach. The language isn’t simple at all [0], it prefers to make things easy. This preference even appears (in the contrapositive) in the “Zen of Python”: “Complex is better than complicated.” As a specific example, Python 3.7 introduced dataclasses, making them dependent on type hints when they could have been completely orthogonal. The language design ignored this talk’s advice against “complecting” features. [0] https://twitter.com/raymondh/status/1280946969116995584 https://twitter.com/raymondh/status/1280946969116995584
- iLemming 6y ago
  https://twitter.com/lxsameer/status/1273546170137300992 https://twitter.com/lxsameer/status/1273546170137300992 > I wrote a #clojure program for logic A in 4 hours. I've been asked to rewrite it in #python because of some product requirements. It's been 3 days since i've started and still on the first 25% of it. Note: I'm using python for more than 13 years.
  - Scarbutt 6y ago
    Yeah, no way that's true if his python and clojure knowledge are at the same level. That tweet sounds like what you see on r/clojure all the time, a cult.
    - iLemming 6y ago
      After using a bunch of other programming languages professionally (for over fifteen years), I can confirm - Clojure is a cult. I am so stuck in it and have no desire to leave. Rich Hickey is a voodoo shaman or something. Don't you ever watch his talks and do not try Clojure! I have warned you!
    - praptak 6y ago
      Just a language that isn't yet used widely in production. I remember when Python was like that, there is even a relevant xkcd strip: https://xkcd.com/353/ https://xkcd.com/353/ Gosh, I remember when JAVA was like that!
milesvp 6y ago
This talk had a profound effect on how I think about complexity, and taught me not to conflate easy and simple, 2 words in english that are often treated as synonyms. It really opened my eyes to how much tooling we use as devs (particularly in ops) that hides much of the complexity of a system. I’m much more dubious now whenever a tool comes around that makes X easier, and look for any added costs to complexity to see if there’s a hidden tradeoff. I highly recommend giving the talk a listen to.
tdrgabi 6y ago
I see this talk given as an example of best talks. I watched it twice. I'm obviously in a minority here, but I don't get it. I hear just truisms. Like: "It's better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick." I know it's hard to summarize a talk in a few paragraphs, but what big point did you get out of it. Honest question, I'm genuinely interested.
- dgb23 6y ago
  The core idea is to separate ease from simplicity and to talk about the implicit trade-offs of adhering to one over the other. He claims that certain (often popular) tools and practices adhere to ease rather than simplicity, which introduces accidental complexity. And he introduces term „to complect“ which is now widely used in the Clojure community. Many of the concepts and comparisons he talks about can be found in the design of Clojure and Datomic.
  - dvnguyen 6y ago
    What is simplicity and how it differs from ease? I haven’t got a chance watching the talk yet.
    - dgb23 6y ago
      Simplicity is described as being "disentangled" or the opposite of complexity. I personally often picture complexity as a graph of nodes and edges: - The more edges you add, the more complex the thing it describes. - The more rules you can deduce about the graph (for example "it is a unidirectional circle-like") such as the flow of the edges, counting etc. the less complex it is. The imagery in the talk describes it similar: Complexity is more knotted and interwoven. Simplicity is more straight-forward, clear and composable. Ease is described as something being "near", also in the dimension of time. Something you already know or can learn/do quickly. The talk goes on describing how simplicity requires up-front investment and time to achieve and also how ease and simplicity sometimes overlap and when they are at odds.
- Ace17 6y ago
  1) easiness is subjective, simplicity is objective. 2) simple code is easy to read, but hard to write. If you're a programmer, and you're not surrounded by people conflating both words, consider yourself lucky. What does a coworker really means by "I did the simplest possible thing" ?
1penny42cents 6y ago
This talk turned an inflection point in my career. The physical metaphor of a braid and having that braid straightened out applies to so many areas of software. "Unbraidedness" is a very useful (albeit informal) measure of quality for me. It helps me detect when something's not right, as well as hinting how I can help straighten it out.
- thereticent 6y ago
  Even the informal concept is useful, but I suspect it could be formalized. I'd love to hear from a theoretical CS person about that notion.
juliend2 6y ago
I wonder what he meant by "Rules" (compared to "Conditions"), in his table where he describes "Complexity" vs "Simplicity". Is it some kind of paradigm that exist in Clojure but not in procedural languages?
- joncampbelldev 6y ago
  I believe conditionals is referring to if statements (and their ilk, switch/case/cond etc). Rules is referring to rule systems and/or more generally declarative knowledge systems. Things like core.logic in clojure (or prolog, datalog and minikanren in the wider world). Stuff like this is not specific to clojure, however it would be harder to have an embedded rules system in your language if its not a lisp. You'd probably have have to resort to a string based DSL (something like drools in java).

133 points by BerislavLopac 6y ago

Wow it has been close to a decade since then. Is there a simple made Easy 2? He presents a number of grandiose ideas, it would be interesting to see what he thinks he got right and what went off the rails.

wellpast 6y ago
That’s precisely what this is, including what he got right &c — “10 Years of Clojure” https://youtu.be/2V1FtfBDsLU https://youtu.be/2V1FtfBDsLU
Scarbutt 6y ago
He indirectly recognized the importance of declaring the shape of data 6 years later by introducing spec, which to date still has big issues and screams "just use a proper statically typed language".
- lukashrb 6y ago
  Everytime I read your name, you subtile spread some negativity :) Maybe Hickey just didn't prioritized "types" as high as some other ideas to spend his time on. And in my opinion he focused on the right things and achieved something really great. As general advice stay positiv, focus on the things you like instead of telling everyone what you don't like, it's better for your mental health ;)
- iLemming 6y ago
  There's no "proper statically typed language." Every single statically typed language I tried, comes with certain drawbacks. However, I'd like to add - I do miss sometimes static types in dynamic langs, including Clojure. Bottom line - there are truly no silver bullets. That's why we keep inventing new programming languages and new paradigms. But of course, once we pick up one "religion," we feel compelled to yell at others: "you're doing it wrong!"
- dgb23 6y ago
  > spec, which to date still has big issues and screams "just use a proper statically typed language" I think this statement is unfair. I don't think there is a widely used statically typed language that is nearly as expressive and simple as spec. Also the opt-in nature of it retains the advantages of dynamic typing.

dgb23 6y ago

All of the Rich Hickey talks I watched (there are many!) are insightful and entertaining. He manages to talk about technical things on a abstract, sometimes philosophical level. I even re-watched some talks after a couple of years and got something new out of them. One of the most entertaining ones I watched was "Spec-ulation". It is less general than some of the more shared/cited ones but really funny.

leetrout 6y ago
Anyone else interested it is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyLBGkS5ICk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyLBGkS5ICk

pansa2 6y ago

Fantastic talk, covering the difference between “simple” and “easy”, and how (when you can’t have both) the former is preferable. I find it interesting that Python, despite being widely described as a simple language, takes the opposite approach. The language isn’t simple at all [0], it prefers to make things easy. This preference even appears (in the contrapositive) in the “Zen of Python”: “Complex is better than complicated.” As a specific example, Python 3.7 introduced dataclasses, making them dependent on type hints when they could have been completely orthogonal. The language design ignored this talk’s advice against “complecting” features. [0] https://twitter.com/raymondh/status/1280946969116995584 https://twitter.com/raymondh/status/1280946969116995584

iLemming 6y ago
https://twitter.com/lxsameer/status/1273546170137300992 https://twitter.com/lxsameer/status/1273546170137300992 > I wrote a #clojure program for logic A in 4 hours. I've been asked to rewrite it in #python because of some product requirements. It's been 3 days since i've started and still on the first 25% of it. Note: I'm using python for more than 13 years.
- Scarbutt 6y ago
  Yeah, no way that's true if his python and clojure knowledge are at the same level. That tweet sounds like what you see on r/clojure all the time, a cult.
  - iLemming 6y ago
    After using a bunch of other programming languages professionally (for over fifteen years), I can confirm - Clojure is a cult. I am so stuck in it and have no desire to leave. Rich Hickey is a voodoo shaman or something. Don't you ever watch his talks and do not try Clojure! I have warned you!
  - praptak 6y ago
    Just a language that isn't yet used widely in production. I remember when Python was like that, there is even a relevant xkcd strip: https://xkcd.com/353/ https://xkcd.com/353/ Gosh, I remember when JAVA was like that!

milesvp 6y ago

This talk had a profound effect on how I think about complexity, and taught me not to conflate easy and simple, 2 words in english that are often treated as synonyms. It really opened my eyes to how much tooling we use as devs (particularly in ops) that hides much of the complexity of a system. I’m much more dubious now whenever a tool comes around that makes X easier, and look for any added costs to complexity to see if there’s a hidden tradeoff. I highly recommend giving the talk a listen to.

tdrgabi 6y ago

I see this talk given as an example of best talks. I watched it twice. I'm obviously in a minority here, but I don't get it. I hear just truisms. Like: "It's better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick." I know it's hard to summarize a talk in a few paragraphs, but what big point did you get out of it. Honest question, I'm genuinely interested.

dgb23 6y ago
The core idea is to separate ease from simplicity and to talk about the implicit trade-offs of adhering to one over the other. He claims that certain (often popular) tools and practices adhere to ease rather than simplicity, which introduces accidental complexity. And he introduces term „to complect“ which is now widely used in the Clojure community. Many of the concepts and comparisons he talks about can be found in the design of Clojure and Datomic.
- dvnguyen 6y ago
  What is simplicity and how it differs from ease? I haven’t got a chance watching the talk yet.
  - dgb23 6y ago
    Simplicity is described as being "disentangled" or the opposite of complexity. I personally often picture complexity as a graph of nodes and edges: - The more edges you add, the more complex the thing it describes. - The more rules you can deduce about the graph (for example "it is a unidirectional circle-like") such as the flow of the edges, counting etc. the less complex it is. The imagery in the talk describes it similar: Complexity is more knotted and interwoven. Simplicity is more straight-forward, clear and composable. Ease is described as something being "near", also in the dimension of time. Something you already know or can learn/do quickly. The talk goes on describing how simplicity requires up-front investment and time to achieve and also how ease and simplicity sometimes overlap and when they are at odds.
Ace17 6y ago
1) easiness is subjective, simplicity is objective. 2) simple code is easy to read, but hard to write. If you're a programmer, and you're not surrounded by people conflating both words, consider yourself lucky. What does a coworker really means by "I did the simplest possible thing" ?

1penny42cents 6y ago

This talk turned an inflection point in my career. The physical metaphor of a braid and having that braid straightened out applies to so many areas of software. "Unbraidedness" is a very useful (albeit informal) measure of quality for me. It helps me detect when something's not right, as well as hinting how I can help straighten it out.

thereticent 6y ago
Even the informal concept is useful, but I suspect it could be formalized. I'd love to hear from a theoretical CS person about that notion.

juliend2 6y ago

I wonder what he meant by "Rules" (compared to "Conditions"), in his table where he describes "Complexity" vs "Simplicity". Is it some kind of paradigm that exist in Clojure but not in procedural languages?

joncampbelldev 6y ago
I believe conditionals is referring to if statements (and their ilk, switch/case/cond etc). Rules is referring to rule systems and/or more generally declarative knowledge systems. Things like core.logic in clojure (or prolog, datalog and minikanren in the wider world). Stuff like this is not specific to clojure, however it would be harder to have an embedded rules system in your language if its not a lisp. You'd probably have have to resort to a string based DSL (something like drools in java).