3 ms·

>I think the point was that some things do not justify their complexity. Especially if you discount inertia. Again, can you provide an example? Because like yo

>I think the point was that some things do not justify their complexity. Especially if you discount inertia. Again, can you provide an example? Because like you implied, tools like node.js and npm, were made with a purpose. They are professional tools made for professional programmers to solve commercial problems. They aren't made for beginners and novices to teach them about programming concepts. Their complexities stems from the fact that they need to support all kinds of deployment and runtime use-cases and can't be too opinioned on how they should be used. >Trivial example: the creat function could have been named create That's your example? Really?

humanrebar 6y ago
It's a trivial example, but a valid one. Those sorts of "it works great as long as you remember..." things are complexity, often unneeded. There are more severe examples of this involving frameworks with assumptions being too hardcoded (or softcoded!) as well. Some are essential complexity, sure. But many aren't.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >It's a trivial example, but a valid one. Oh come on. You're complaining about a function name (created decades ago) in a system level language as an example of 'needless complexity'. That's not complexity - that's just a quirky name kept around for backwards compatibility. By the way if you don't like 'creat' or find it difficult to use then don't use 'creat' use 'open' with the relevant flags. Any complexity around C programming does not come from this ... Honestly. I have yet to see someone actually point out a good example of needless complexity in programming - something that the blog author is complaining about that apparently you agree with but cannot come up with a single reasonable example.