Users absolutely want complexity. Obviously most people would never say it in those words but lots of things they do ask for come with a lot of inherent complexity. Things like "it should just work", or remembering a preference for later, or automatically linking to some related data, or streamlining a workflow because in this situation you should know my intent so you should just default to the thing I probably want to do and save me a few clicks, etc.

Sure, there are lots of times where you're better off ignoring these user requests, and where scope creep or bureaucracy or tech debt or just sloppy coding introduce unnecessary complexity. But even if we could always build exactly what users want and always build things cleanly starting from a blank slate, software would still be complex.

In many companies, big complex software is desirable, because of poor incentive structures. I've seen many projects ballon into vastly over-complex nightmares, because engineers are often rewarded for solving "hard" and "complex" problems. So with complicit management (who are also rewarded when their engineers are promoted), they invent complexity and then "solve" it.

Venture capital has corrupted the tech industry to its core.

The VC cash machine has brought us nothing except short term thinking, get-rich-quick schemes, social manipulation, herd mentality, idol-worship, media corruption and corporate growth.

I look forward to the next tech bubble. I hope they all get wiped out.

Ill winds blow no-one any good

If they all get wiped out, it will be very good for me personally.

Firstly, I will enjoy watching them fail. It will make me happy intrinsically. If I lose my software engineer job and have to work as a janitor for a while, it would be totally worth it.

Secondly, the subsequent failure of their portfolio companies will free up a huge amount of marketshare in many industries; some of which I will be able to capture with my own side project until I can afford quit my janitor day job.

Some developers wallow in complexity. I dare say you could call it enjoyment. Especially if they work at a place that believes in hero worship.

Oh look at all the overly complicated crap I can put up with. I must be amazing.

The reason complexity exists is because everyone wants a different simple thing. Then, having attained the simple thing, they want another simple thing.

Complex systems evolve from simple systems. One reason we keep winding up with new complex systems is because of folks saying "it's too complex, let's start over without all these bullshit layers and code simply", where "bullshit layers" and "simply" are variables set by the prevailing environment.

A lot of these abstractions, for good or for ill, make it easier for "large" organizations (where "large" here means > 10 people) to iterate quickly. Users do not need the abstraction, but it makes the organization as a whole quicker and more agile. It is an interesting question whether startups can enter a market served by a larger organization and disrupt it by offering lean products built by lean teams.

Exactly my thoughts. Had a chance to experience it first-hand recently (as explained in my other comment).

Edit:

> It’s fashionable to throw huge teams, hardware and middleware at problems these days.

My theory is that it comes down to :

- Clients and managers thinking that the UX/visual look has something to do with the front-end framework, forgetting that in the end any web app is just HTML, CSS and JS, and frameworks having more to do with maintenance.

- Shops lacking seniors, and young engineers (legitimately) more interested by the tech than solving the business problem in a boring way.

So here we are with the "fashion" that any business app must be done as a SPA "because it needs to look modern". You can see the opportunity.

While I get what you are saying, I mostly disagree. You have to differentiate between if the problem exists and whether the solution is any good. When computing became really mainstream we were standing on the shoulder of giants. A lot things had trickled down from things like research and were really good for the time. But they also lacked in a lot of things we care about today like encryption, automation, design, cross-platform and security. Today these things aren't coming out of research, nor necessarily large companies, but some random person who can see the problem. It would be a lot better if something like authentication was included in HTTP, but that isn't happening for various reasons, so it is going to be a job for a framework. That isn't necessarily a good solution, but it a solution to a problem that exists.

It really seems like things like PARC was an anomaly. Companies eventually figured that it was just better to "be part of the problem" and make a lot of money like in many other industries.

Amen. If I knew something like ColdFusion I would be making web apps and starting businesses constantly, I love to solve user problems.

Nothing is stopping you from learning ColdFusion. Websites built in it will still work just fine. The fact that everyone else is doing complicated stuff doesn't mean that you have to.

Programs are big because peoples needs are big.

Parent is downvoted but I recall it as an epigram (and I agree) but can't find references discussing it.

Users wouldn't tolerate WordStar and Pac-Man today.

Do Google Docs have more features than WordStar?

This! Haha, this is such a good no-bullshit-description of the state of the art of software development. It can be a real a merry-go-round of: Premature problem solving, premature abstractions, and premature optimizations.