[devuo]

It's interesting how simplicity so often gets mistaken for a lack of sophistication. Designing a language for clarity and maintainability is a laudable goal, and so is choosing to use one. Chasing complexity, or reaching for the latest trendy language that lets you "express yourself" in ten different ways to do the same thing, isn't what makes someone an S-tier engineer. Simplicity isn't a concession. It's a hard discipline.

[rob74]

> Designing a language for clarity and maintainability is a laudable goal, and so is choosing to use one. Chasing complexity, or reaching for the latest trendy language that lets you "express yourself" in ten different ways to do the same thing, isn't what makes someone an S-tier engineer.

But it sure looks good on your resume!

[dwattttt]

In exactly the same way, complexity you don't understand the purpose of is often disregarded as complexity for complexities sake.

It's easy to get things simple and wrong, and hard to get things simple and right. And sometimes complexity is there for a good reason, but if you don't work hard to understand, you'll fall into the "simple and wrong" camp often.

[bb88]

One problem with simplicity is that it often moves the complexity elsewhere, particularly if you're designing things that others use.

Brainfuck the language is simple to use and implement. It has only 8 commands. Brainfuck programs are virtually unreadable, unless you can get your head around it.

The advantage of trying to solve complexity is that if you can solve it, you've solved it once and exactly once for everyone involved.

[elktown]

The problem is further exacerbated by needless complexity being seen as sophistication, and in the end; one's competency level. A lot of today's bloat and bullshit is caused by this attitude. Like a football team full of body builders preoccupied with showing of their muscles and wondering why they're languishing at the bottom of the table.