3 ms·

I agree with the article, but to be fair, all software aims to simplify a task. So calling a procedure "simple" is usually done in comparison with what used to

by imiric 4y ago

I agree with the article, but to be fair, all software aims to simplify a task. So calling a procedure "simple" is usually done in comparison with what used to be more difficult/complicated. Though my biggest annoyance with this is when it's part of network protocol names: SNMP, SMTP, TFTP, etc. What you usually find when working with these is that they're far from being simple, so it borders on false advertising. Maybe they start that way, and that is the author's vision, but when they mature it often stops being true. Or maybe they were simple compared to what predated them, and for their time and place. But it's still a bad idea to name a protocol or standard that.

BossingAround 4y ago
> I agree with the article, but to be fair, all software aims to simplify a task. So calling a procedure "simple" is usually done in comparison with what used to be more difficult/complicated. It follows that calling anything "simple" is redundant. Either it's implied (i.e. "of course it should be simple, otherwise I'd just use X"), or it's wrong. Indicating the difficulty of anything has no place in any technical text.
- kazinator 4y ago
  So, it's off limits in a technical text to say that, say !(!a && !b) simplifies to a || b, or anything else in a similar vein?
  - abtinf 4y ago
    In English, the math jargon term “simplifies to” means roughly “is equivalent to this less complex form”. It does not connote difficulty.
    - kazinator 4y ago
      It absolutely denotes difficulty. E.g. more machine cycles are needed to traverse the original expression tree that has more nodes.
      - abtinf 4y ago
        You dropped the context of the discussion. We aren’t talking about machines, but humans. That is a different usage of the word “difficulty”, meaning something requiring more work to achieve an outcome, but that is not the relevant meaning in this context. In the context of this discussion, “difficulty” is being used to describe the level of significant and sustained focused mental effort to grasp and integrate a new concept into one’s existing body of knowledge.

by imiric 4y ago

BossingAround 4y ago

> I agree with the article, but to be fair, all software aims to simplify a task. So calling a procedure "simple" is usually done in comparison with what used to be more difficult/complicated. It follows that calling anything "simple" is redundant. Either it's implied (i.e. "of course it should be simple, otherwise I'd just use X"), or it's wrong. Indicating the difficulty of anything has no place in any technical text.

kazinator 4y ago
So, it's off limits in a technical text to say that, say !(!a && !b) simplifies to a || b, or anything else in a similar vein?
- abtinf 4y ago
  In English, the math jargon term “simplifies to” means roughly “is equivalent to this less complex form”. It does not connote difficulty.
  - kazinator 4y ago
    It absolutely denotes difficulty. E.g. more machine cycles are needed to traverse the original expression tree that has more nodes.
    - abtinf 4y ago
      You dropped the context of the discussion. We aren’t talking about machines, but humans. That is a different usage of the word “difficulty”, meaning something requiring more work to achieve an outcome, but that is not the relevant meaning in this context. In the context of this discussion, “difficulty” is being used to describe the level of significant and sustained focused mental effort to grasp and integrate a new concept into one’s existing body of knowledge.