> “Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Well, duh. We all want things to be simpler. But we may not know what to sacrifice in order to achieve that goal.
"Simple" can be used on both extremes, and therefore it doesn't mean anything. I have seen so many bad designs justified by "KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid".
To find a comparison that is worth what it is worth: is Vim simpler than VScode (because the codebase of Vim is much smaller and easier to maintain), or on the contrary is VScode simpler than Vim (because the users have to learn more stuff before they can use Vim)?
Does a simple library provide a small codebase that is easy to maintain (but harder to use), or does it provide a bigger codebase with a very constrained interface that prevents beginners from "shooting themselves in the foot" (which is harder to maintain, and limiting for advanced users)?
In the end, I'm afraid that writing good software requires experience, but the software industry seems to have issues accepting that.
"Simple" can be used on both extremes, and therefore it doesn't mean anything. I have seen so many bad designs justified by "KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid".
To find a comparison that is worth what it is worth: is Vim simpler than VScode (because the codebase of Vim is much smaller and easier to maintain), or on the contrary is VScode simpler than Vim (because the users have to learn more stuff before they can use Vim)?
Does a simple library provide a small codebase that is easy to maintain (but harder to use), or does it provide a bigger codebase with a very constrained interface that prevents beginners from "shooting themselves in the foot" (which is harder to maintain, and limiting for advanced users)?
In the end, I'm afraid that writing good software requires experience, but the software industry seems to have issues accepting that.