Hacker News Reader

Comment by frou_dh | Hacker News Reader

This great talk is a pet peeve inducer, because after watching it you will start noticing how often the word "simple" is still used as a platitude in programming circles.

View on HN

When I use the word 'Simple' in e.g., a class name, I usually mean: ~"This is meant to cover the 80% of common cases--I haven't done extensive testing or development on it. If you need to cover something in the remaining 20% of edge and corner cases, you're going to need to write your own more complex code to handle those."

I.e., my code is simple--and that might make your usage complex.

Of course, things can evolve from the original implementation--especially if the code is maintained by a team. What was once 'simple' (from any perspective) can become terribly appendaged yet never renamed.

My pet peeve is how many articles use the word simple, and immediately after refer to this talk.

It's a great talk, but it's like nobody is allowed to say "simple" anymore without mentioning Rich Hickey.

When it comes down to it, Hickey's talk does not even need to be referenced. The core of the peeve is that when the millionth "X is a simple library/tool/language for Y-ing" pitch is made, the question should be: On what OBJECTIVE basis is this simpler than the alternatives? (Because everyone thinks their own polished creations or preferred techniques are "simple" and so the word as typically used in pitches is close to meaningless).

Actually its incredibly simple.

See, I just did it and didn't have to mention Rich Hickey.

The new age variant is quoting the Tao Te Ching instead of Rich Hickey.

"Simple, like a block of uncarved wood."

Simple Block tm

At least "simple" tries to say something - even if it's completely subjective.

Far worse is "pragmatic".

Or "for humans", hopefully that trend has died down though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com