4 ms·
I had this same thought after reading that line. I started thinking about where the complexity should live, if not with the developers. My conclusion is that it
by reidjs 3y ago
I had this same thought after reading that line. I started thinking about where the complexity should live, if not with the developers. My conclusion is that it should live with whoever has the most 'skin in the game,' or the largest stakeholder of the enterprise. So, the CTO, CEO, Founder, Director, etc should "own" the complexity?
- csours 3y agoIt's not complexity per se. Some things will always be complex. It's about continuous improvement of things like documentation and observability - "non functional" stuff.
- RetroTechie 3y agoSome complexity is artificially introduced - on purpose, by the abstraction itself. Imho abstractions should be simple enough that whatever complexity its implementation introduces, is manageable by its users & developers. Quite a few APIs exist which are complex enough that hardly anyone (developer or user) has a handle on existing implementation. Imho such an API overshoots its goal: it abstracts too much, and/or too high level, to the point where understanding what's between API & underlying hardware, becomes impossible for 1 human. Never mind understand underlying hardware (or write software that uses the API efficiently), because API creates a target that's alien compared to hw it runs on. That doesn't make sense! Cut the abstraction down to a manageable degree of (added!) complexity.
- bartread 3y agoI don't think that scales: a lot of the complexity is in the detail. It's pretty hard for it to meaningfully live with someone whose job is all about higher level concerns and bigger, more forward-looking moves.