> Paraphrasing, but there's basically two ways to write code: either it's so complicated there are no obvious deficiencies, or it's so simple there are obviously no deficiencies.

Anyone who's seen an enterprise Java codebase knows there's a third way: so verbose that no-one can tell whether there are any deficiencies, even if each line in isolation is "simple".

I think we vastly underestimate the importance of sheer code length. Being able to comprehend the function, class, or program as a whole makes a lot more difference than whether nested ternaries or the like were used, IME.