4 ms·

> far smaller, simpler and less capable So, better, in other words?

• bensyverson 2mo ago
  Sure, in the same way that nano is better than Microsoft Word. Unfortunately, sometimes nano is not enough. In the case of this client project, we are only now getting to enough functionality to be generally useful. The complexity that exists in the project is necessary complexity. A lot of coders are simply wrong about complexity, and feel it can always be reduced.
  • lproven 2mo ago
    Complexity in software in general is an evil thing, to be feared and fought and avoided at all costs. Niklaus Wirth pointed this out over 30 years ago… https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/348001 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/348001 … and it has grown exponentially worse since. I think that the software world ought to fear and dread complexity, the same way that the Unix designers feared and dreaded verbosity. « Note the obsessive use of abbreviations and avoidance of capital letters; this is a system invented by people to whom repetitive stress disorder is what black lung is to miners. Long names get worn down to three-letter nubbins, like stones smoothed by a river. » https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs81n/command.txt https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs81n/command.txt We ought to be religiously obsessive about avoiding it. In the end, everyone would benefit thereby.