4 ms·
I think it’s fair for a project as a whole to describe itself as “simple” as a statement of its goals (vs. e.g. “flexible”, “high-performance”, “easy-to-use”, a
by wwalexander 4y ago
I think it’s fair for a project as a whole to describe itself as “simple” as a statement of its goals (vs. e.g. “flexible”, “high-performance”, “easy-to-use”, and so on).
For example, Suckless Software describes many of their Linux applications as simple, and it’s a fitting description that also encodes the spartan nature of the projects compared to their more commonly used counterparts.
But outside of a README or GitHub project description, I completely agree. Simplicity is the absence of complexity, and will become in retrospect when users choose what you’ve made because you made it simple enough to do so.
- mmcnl 4y agoI don't think it's fair. Simple is subjective. Goals should be objective. I don't want to know and understand the entire context in which a project was conceived.
- wwalexander 4y agoSimple is subjective, which means it shouldn’t be used in contexts where accuracy and objectivity are paramount (like technical documentation). But if I’m searching for e.g. a “simple monitor hardware brightness control for Mac” without extra nice-to-have features or GUIs, a project that describes itself as “simple” gives me a useful clue that the developers might have priorities that match my needs.