On 1/18/26 12:49 PM, Ron wrote:
Probably because without qualifiers it is neither insightful nor useful.
What's too complex? Why is the specific complexity "too much"?
There were more qualifiers in the original. I contrasted complexity
against benefit. (Though I had a typo in the benefit part, I wrote
"(benefit is always)" not "(benefit is always good)". Apologies.)
Please allow me that correction, but either way, I stand by my statement.
Unless one is looking for a puzzle for the sake of a puzzle, if one is
instead building something, complexity *is* always bad. There has to be
sufficient benefit to justify adding complexity.
Merely adding complexity is a bad thing. (Assuming the benefit remains
the same.) And merely removing complexity (assuming the benefit remains
the same) is always good.
Adding some of each and deciding it is worth is, is the tricky part.
Finding a way to reduce complexity while also increasing benefit is the
win-win one should hope to be clever enough to find.
-kb, the Kent who stands pedantically behind "(complexity is always bad)".
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
