3 ms·

> This definition means that complexity is completely dependent on the individual. ... I can't accept ... Isn't this exactly how it works though? Many things l

> This definition means that complexity is completely dependent on the individual. ... I can't accept ... Isn't this exactly how it works though? Many things look hopelessly complex until you gain additional knowledge about adjacent concepts. Consider how an elegant piece of Haskell code looks to an outsider who isn't yet proficient with the type system. Consider how difficult it is to make sense of call/cc the first time you encounter the concept of continuations, even though the underlying principle is incredibly simple. Consider how apparently difficult it is for many seasoned developers to adjust to the Rust borrow checker. It's almost like you need a "frame of reference" for judging complexity, analogous to physical systems. The velocity of an object is entirely dependent on the observer ...

Verdex 5y ago
I don't think so. To be sure, familiarly can make things easier. So APL looks complex until you get used to it. However, intercal is designed to be purposefully incomprehensible. You can make it (objectively) incrementally less complex by removing the "please" rule, for example. Similarly you can make it objectively more complex (in a way that nobody can get used to) by randomly choosing a number at compile time and then requiring every file to have a "please" on that line. Familiarity can make complexity easier to deal with but there exists objective complexity that (all things being equal) will make things easier to deal with if it were addressed.
- d110af5ccf 5y ago
  You acknowledge that APL looks complex until you get used to it. So then how can you objectively score the complexity of code written in it? Won't the precise numerical value inevitably depend on the internal state of the individual reading the code? Ignoring this inconvenient fact would seem to lead to fairly useless metrics. I can see where the notion of scoring overall complexity can be a useful cognitive tool when working alongside people with similar backgrounds to yourself but I don't think there's anything objective about it at all. In fact, I don't think that an objective measure can exist in the general sense. Note that all I'm arguing here is that any useful software complexity metric will inevitably exhibit a dependence on the individual. I agree that intentional obfuscation adds complexity in an objective sense but would argue that there's no objective way to quantify how much it adds and that any such score will inevitably vary between observers. I think Code Golf is a relevant example here. Programs of minimal size whose textual representation often looks almost like line noise. They are simple and elegant in the sense that they are small; the meaning per character has been maximized to the best of the author's ability. However, they are also highly complex in the sense that the typical human will find them incredibly difficult to make sense of.

Verdex 5y ago

I don't think so. To be sure, familiarly can make things easier. So APL looks complex until you get used to it. However, intercal is designed to be purposefully incomprehensible. You can make it (objectively) incrementally less complex by removing the "please" rule, for example. Similarly you can make it objectively more complex (in a way that nobody can get used to) by randomly choosing a number at compile time and then requiring every file to have a "please" on that line. Familiarity can make complexity easier to deal with but there exists objective complexity that (all things being equal) will make things easier to deal with if it were addressed.

d110af5ccf 5y ago
You acknowledge that APL looks complex until you get used to it. So then how can you objectively score the complexity of code written in it? Won't the precise numerical value inevitably depend on the internal state of the individual reading the code? Ignoring this inconvenient fact would seem to lead to fairly useless metrics. I can see where the notion of scoring overall complexity can be a useful cognitive tool when working alongside people with similar backgrounds to yourself but I don't think there's anything objective about it at all. In fact, I don't think that an objective measure can exist in the general sense. Note that all I'm arguing here is that any useful software complexity metric will inevitably exhibit a dependence on the individual. I agree that intentional obfuscation adds complexity in an objective sense but would argue that there's no objective way to quantify how much it adds and that any such score will inevitably vary between observers. I think Code Golf is a relevant example here. Programs of minimal size whose textual representation often looks almost like line noise. They are simple and elegant in the sense that they are small; the meaning per character has been maximized to the best of the author's ability. However, they are also highly complex in the sense that the typical human will find them incredibly difficult to make sense of.