[Verdex_3]

I really like it when people become concerned about cognitive complexity. I think it's one of the significantly ignored concepts in our industry and if we ever find a way to address the issue (either with some sort of cognitive complexity solution or some sort of big oh like math framework that describes how things are complex) then the future generations of software engineers will look at what we're currently doing now the same way we look at how people used to do alchemy for our lack of being able to handle cognitive complexity.

Personally, I want a mathematical structure of "problems" such that we can track when we're actually making things more complex or less complex. In the article, removing boilerplate was a problem because internal domain models were being exposed publicly. But what I really want to know is "what are we actually gaining by removing the boiler plate and what are we losing by exposing domain models". In like a general mathematical sense such that if everyone about programming changes (maybe suddenly we switch to APL or something), the lessons we learned are still valid.

So far the best I've managed is [1]. I've done a bunch of refinement in the last year and a half, but the general structure is about the same. I'm not suggesting that what I have is complete or even necessarily the right direction to go for this sort of thing. But what I am saying is that in order to make definite statements about how the problem and/or code you're dealing with is complex (that don't rely on appeals to authority) then you probably need to have done at least as much "work" as I have (if that makes any sense).

[1] - https://www.sep.com/sep-blog/2017/04/25/objective-code-quali...

[skohan]

I like the alchemy analogy. I think a huge trap we tend to fall into as a profession is presuming to know what software engineering practices are good or bad when we actually have next to zero empirical data on the matter. Most of what the accepted dogma is comes from either authority, or from what techniques lend themselves to the strongest arguments.