Slashdot Mirror
Dr. Dobb's Calls BS On Obsession With Simple Code
theodp writes "Over at Dr. Dobb's, Editor-in-Chief Andrew Binstock has a nice rant on The Misplaced Obsession with Simplicity. 'Any idiot can write complex code,' goes the old maxim, 'the true art is writing simple code.' Right, Andrew? Wrong (mostly). Binstock explains, 'It's not true that any idiot can write complex code. Complex code is difficult, often very difficult, to write. It's entirely true that it's more difficult to maintain, too. But that's the nature of complexity. Some things are intensely difficult to express in code and they require complexity, simply because they're not inherently simple.' After citing the complex-but-necessarily-so code of Al Aho and sometimes-misguided reverence for cyclomatic complexity limits to help make his point, Binstock concludes, 'My view of simplicity is unemotional and free of idolatry because I define it with respect to complexity, rather than the other way around: Simplicity is the quality of code that is no more complex than required to express the underlying complexity. In this way, simple code can be intensely complex. There is no inherent good/bad dichotomy.'"
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Interesting article, but this seems an issue of a very pedantic interpretation of a common idiom.
When I (or I suspect most) whine about pointlessly complex code, it's just that. Code that is more complex than is reasonable for the problem. No one expects a simple solution for a challanging problem. It's an overly complex solution to a simple problem which we complain about...
I have often noticed that complexity is added to code when it grows over time. Typically, a project starts off very well. We have requirements and we use the best possible design with limited future expansion capabilities and come up with simple code that works well. However, over time, things change and we come across situations that the original code cannot handle. But instead of writing from scratch, we hack it and that is how complexity and subsequently bugs get added. In my experience, the base infrastructure code for any system always looks simplistic and beautiful. The ugly part is often how it has been used over the years.
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
-- Leonardo da Vinci
"Plurality should not be assumed without necessity."
-- William of Ockham, often referred to as Ockham's Razor -- the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
-- Attributed to Einstein
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
-- Albert Einstein (attributed)
"Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things." -- Issac Newton
"Beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on simplicity."
-- Plato
"The greatest ideas are the simplest."
-- William Golding, Lord of the Flies
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."
-- E.F. Schumacher
"Those guys are all wrong."
-- Andrew Binstock, Editor in Chief, Dr. Dobbs
Choose well, reader...
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me
When you redefine your opposition's argument and then knock it down with your own argument it is called a strawman. That's what he just did there.
No one is saying in regards to simplicity that all programs should be two line bits of nothing.
What people are instead saying is that code should be efficient, tight, and achieve the end goal as simply and directly as possible.
What we are and have always been talking about is efficiency. It goes back to the first computers that had very limited memory. They required VERY efficient code because they simply didn't have the storage or memory to run anything that took up more space. As a result, code for those machines tended to be very very efficient. It was a requirement.
When we complain about complexity, we are not complaining that the task of the program is too complex. Rather, we're complaining that the program is badly coded. We are complaining that it is inefficient and disorganized.
So nice try. Try again.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Brooks made a big point in "No Silver Bullet" about the difference between what he called accidental complexity (introduced by the developers) and essential complexity (introduced by the reality of the problem). And the key thing is that the accidental complexity needs to be avoided or fixed with tools, but the essential complexity can't be avoided.
I am officially gone from
Complex problems are defined as problems with no simple solution. The article is not just simple, it's a tautology.
Compare .NET code to the compiled machine code. .net runtime is nothing but a set of functions in a separate file. using simple functions means main()can be an outline of the program, for example .
... 1000 more lines
Which is easier to understand and work on? The
By any measure, Linus Torvalds is an incredibly successful programmer. His guideline is 6-8 lines per function or so.
Consider these two example programs:
Stand
Turn left
Walk four steps
Turn right
Walk two steps
Turn right
Vs:
heatlunch()
readslashdot()
Even if the function heatlunch() is used nowhere else, using it makes the program far more understandable than inlining the walking code to get to the microwave.