4 ms·

I need to go to the bathroom. The simplest thing that solves my immediate problem is to urinate in my pants. I ate a bag of chips and now I have an empty bag to

by feoren 5y ago

I need to go to the bathroom. The simplest thing that solves my immediate problem is to urinate in my pants. I ate a bag of chips and now I have an empty bag to dispose of. The simplest thing that solves my immediate problem is to throw it on the floor. So it's clear that "the simplest thing that solves my immediate problem", like simply adding a new int field to the most convenient table, can compound into an awful mess. But perhaps "simple" is not the right word here. I like Rich Hickey's talk on simple vs. easy; we're both using the wrong word according to him. "Simple" means not intertwined or tangled; well-organized. "Easy" means "close at hand" or "familiar". We both mean "easy" here. https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy/ https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy/ That being said, your examples of complexity fetish do indeed sound awful. Abstract classes, optional configuration files, environment variables and regular expression; we can agree those are awful. Those are neither easy nor simple. But the problem is that they're not discussions about the domain, they're truly unnecessary. Maybe that's all you really mean. >We had to add something to the database the other day. Big argument. Should be one to many? many to many? what if this or that happens? what if requirements change? You know what - for the requirement we actually had it was solvable with a single integer field on an existing table. Agreed about not inventing requirements, but questions about "how is this likely to change in the future?" are much closer to productive discussion. Discussions about one-to-many vs. many-to-many can also be the exact discussions software developers should be spending most of our time on (although don't get me started on the awful database designs most software has, so these discussions may be inane for that reason alone).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ProZsolt 5y ago
> I ate a bag of chips and now I have an empty bag to dispose of. The simplest thing that solves my immediate problem is to throw it on the floor. Maybe that's the best solution for the long run, instead of designing and implementing a whole garbage disposal system from the ground up for only one piece of trash. My problem a lot of software developers are trying to solve problems they don't have and never will. This consumes time and adds unnecessary complexity to their projects.
- citrin_ru 5y ago
  People are bad a predicting future. Especially when this predicting is done in 5 minutes before implementing something and not dedicated activity which includes interviewing of users and domain experts. I've seen this many times: programmer is asked to solve a small and well defined problem. Instead programmer generalizes it and makes something more universal with the requested feature as a special case. More often than not nothing except this special case is used. Or working on some new project they add a feature which looks useful in theory, but ends up being rarely/never used. It may look easy to implement initially, but over the years maintenance cost can be much higher.
  - pipingdog 5y ago
    People are amazing at predicting the future, and in some ways we are better at it than remembering the past. That's because we use the same machinery to do both. We partly remember the future, and predict the past. This ability breaks down with complexity and abstractness, as well as with novelty, all of which are involved in software (I can tell you that the sun will come up tomorrow, and where I should move my hand to catch a ball, but I can't predict all of the defects my software will have--though if it involves X.509 certificates, I can tell you exactly when a particular sort of outage will occur)
- mysterydip 5y ago
  Prematurely designing for scale when I just needed to finish the beta version has been my engineering vice.
  - inDigiNeous 5y ago
    For me too this took years and years to learn. It's a hard lesson that seems can only be learned by walking the road and learning from working on a particular piece of software for a long time, at least that's what it took for me. I guess it's called experience to know when to design and when to just implement. Somebody wrote somewhere for example that if you're not going to need a particular piece of code in more than 3 different places, don't write a function for it. As a newbie you would totally want to write a function for it, thus also making it harder to read the code as you would have to understand the function in order to see what it does in that context. Also thinking in terms of "Do I really need this feature in future use cases?" is something I don't feel you can assess when not having the experience of already have peeked into those future use cases, where in many cases you will not ever need that particular function in more than this one place. But can you learn how to design a reusable system without first doing it in the wrong places ? That's something that is hard to say, I don't know. Could you teach somebody who wants to build complex, reusable components not to do it and just stick to simplicity ? How would one then know how to build those reusable systems where you need them ? Maybe we should focus more on training both simplicity and complex design, but rarely you can do that when you are under pressure and working on real life software.

by feoren 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ProZsolt 5y ago

> I ate a bag of chips and now I have an empty bag to dispose of. The simplest thing that solves my immediate problem is to throw it on the floor. Maybe that's the best solution for the long run, instead of designing and implementing a whole garbage disposal system from the ground up for only one piece of trash. My problem a lot of software developers are trying to solve problems they don't have and never will. This consumes time and adds unnecessary complexity to their projects.

citrin_ru 5y ago
People are bad a predicting future. Especially when this predicting is done in 5 minutes before implementing something and not dedicated activity which includes interviewing of users and domain experts. I've seen this many times: programmer is asked to solve a small and well defined problem. Instead programmer generalizes it and makes something more universal with the requested feature as a special case. More often than not nothing except this special case is used. Or working on some new project they add a feature which looks useful in theory, but ends up being rarely/never used. It may look easy to implement initially, but over the years maintenance cost can be much higher.
- pipingdog 5y ago
  People are amazing at predicting the future, and in some ways we are better at it than remembering the past. That's because we use the same machinery to do both. We partly remember the future, and predict the past. This ability breaks down with complexity and abstractness, as well as with novelty, all of which are involved in software (I can tell you that the sun will come up tomorrow, and where I should move my hand to catch a ball, but I can't predict all of the defects my software will have--though if it involves X.509 certificates, I can tell you exactly when a particular sort of outage will occur)
mysterydip 5y ago
Prematurely designing for scale when I just needed to finish the beta version has been my engineering vice.
- inDigiNeous 5y ago
  For me too this took years and years to learn. It's a hard lesson that seems can only be learned by walking the road and learning from working on a particular piece of software for a long time, at least that's what it took for me. I guess it's called experience to know when to design and when to just implement. Somebody wrote somewhere for example that if you're not going to need a particular piece of code in more than 3 different places, don't write a function for it. As a newbie you would totally want to write a function for it, thus also making it harder to read the code as you would have to understand the function in order to see what it does in that context. Also thinking in terms of "Do I really need this feature in future use cases?" is something I don't feel you can assess when not having the experience of already have peeked into those future use cases, where in many cases you will not ever need that particular function in more than this one place. But can you learn how to design a reusable system without first doing it in the wrong places ? That's something that is hard to say, I don't know. Could you teach somebody who wants to build complex, reusable components not to do it and just stick to simplicity ? How would one then know how to build those reusable systems where you need them ? Maybe we should focus more on training both simplicity and complex design, but rarely you can do that when you are under pressure and working on real life software.