In software there are many things that are more complex than they need to be.
Sometimes it can be a subtractive practice, where a person can delete / simplify, but this happens much less than it should.
> “Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.”
Complexity is one of the manifestations of this problem, but that doesn't mean that complexity cannot arise due to other reasons (i.e. essential vs incidental).
The answer is more along the line of better refactoring (or programming) tools, stronger type systems, better cross-program and whole system static checking etc.
1. Even software with no "accidental" complexity is necessarily complex (in fact, that's why it's useful).
2. If the manifesto's point is that we should stop over-complicating things, then wouldn't it better to first examine whether, and if so why, things are overcomplicated now, given that the previous generation also went on a crusade to abolish (over)complication? If the point is to declare "don't overcomplicate!" then, if you believe things are overcomplicated now, why is that declaration useful if it's clearly not effective?
In the early days people usually lived close to water bodies (rivers, lakes, etc.) because the closer you lived to the water the better your society thrived (water being essential for live, agriculture, transportation, etc). But there is a limit where if you go too far (i.e. into the water) the benefits evaporate possibly reversing the benefits (building houses into the water adds complexity, flooding, etc).
So there is probably a (global?) optimum that is neither too complex nor too simplistic
Except for that special guru who writes The Framework for the company, because why not a Forth-based DSL for everyone to work in? Overblown, I know, but there are kitchen sink types, or those who just don't know that there's an easier way, and other reasons to wind up with too many tools or layers or libraries.
(I've been guilty of not knowing easier ways, so...)
This 100%.
I'd also add that, often times, attempts at simplifying end up having the opposite effect and actually increase complexity because, as you say, the reasons for the current complexity haven't been explored/understood.
I think the explanation is similar, but slightly more complex, than this.
I don't think we'd necessarily be in a worse place without crusades like this, because I don't really believe they have any impact on general trends in software. But that's not the same as having no impact or value.
Rather, I think these crusades are important for their niche influence; without them, we would only have the overcomplicated mainstream, without the minority of simpler options, that will never come to dominance but, hopefully, with the help of advocacy like this, will continue to have some small following.
> there needs to be a constant struggle not to over-complicate, but it should be done with the understanding that over-simplification is just as problematic
While I agree with the sentiment, the latter seems to be less of a problem in practice, no?
The reason this plethora exists may well the be crusade that you mention. Instead of solving the problems with the current programming language, let us just invent a new one instead. The former thing is much harder to pull of, of course but should limit the amount of complexity in the long run.
I would like to differentiate simplification, aka "dumbing things down", from purification, which is finding the right frame of reference to enable a more compact representation of the necessary complexity. Purification is always highly desirable (unless it's just a facade used to make oversimplification more appealing).
The problem with purification is that you usually don't have the time to ruminate on your problem space for months.
There probably are exceptions. Software can sometimes be complex for no good reason except maybe its architects didn’t have a good plan and folks just added more bad code on top of existing bad code. I’m just not sure if that’s as common as the crusaders want it to be, and when folks say they want to simplify, I think that most of the time it’s because they don’t understand what they’re getting themselves into.
Abstractions are a way to create contexts where contexts might not apparently exists and the main objective of these contexts is to provide simple models at every contextual layer to understand the infinitely complex environment where everything exists.
The TLDW is that Kay thinks we haven't discovered all the fundamental rules of computing, a la Maxwells Equations for physics. If you are able to figure these out, you can substantially cut down your accidental complexity.
FWIW, my unscientific view is that achieving simplicity is really hard and doesn't scale people-wise. Instead of C99 without a bunch of stuff, I'd probably use Scheme to create very dense (lots of bespoke abstractions and idioms) but simple software. That approach works reasonably well, but try onboarding a new developer!
> Computers have been invented to surprise us
> If we knew what computers do, we would not use them, and we would not have built any.
This means that computers are most useful precisely where the complexity of the problem is beyond our efficient reasoning powers. Like Brooks, I think that our accidental complexity is already quite low (no more than 50%), and while it's always good to decrease it, what we're left with will still be very complex -- that's why it's useful.
I think the 3 body problem is indicative of what Kay says. One simple rule produces very rich behavior. Why not have something like that for your network stack?
In a way, it is like that already. After all, all computation can be described as a repeated application of, say, the very simple reduction rules of the lambda calculus. How does that help? Does the fact we know what the gravity equation help us predict the system's behavior (e.g. to ensure that some bad state is never reached)?
I understand what you're getting at, but I'd argue that what you're suggesting isn't actually simple by any means.
> The complexity of software is an essential property, not an accidental one. Hence, descriptions of a software entity that abstract away its complexity often abstracts away its essence. (No Silver Bullet, 1986)
> Complexity is the business we are in, and complexity is what limits us. (No Silver Bullet Refired, 1995)
The reason "complexity is the business we are in" is that software doesn't live in a vacuum. Like the economy and like bureaucracy, it is built to serve a certain social purpose. Of course, there needs to be a constant struggle not to over-complicate, but it should be done with the understanding that over-simplification is just as problematic.