The complexity is optional and comes from squeezing the last few nanoseconds =).
> has 2-3 wide multiplications compared to 1 for newer methods.
As written, the `shortFloat()` function always calls `uscale()` two times, followed by an optional third call. Each `uscale()` does two wide multiplications (one full 64x64->128 and one 64x64->hi64, in case we want to make that distinction), so that works out to either 4 or 6 wide multiplications in total. I think `shortFloat()` could be rewritten to always do exactly 2 wide multiplications (both 64x64->128) at the cost of some more ALU operations. However, I don't see how that could be further reduced to only one wide multiplication, so you're definitely right that yy is still better, at least as far as this one metric is concerned.
Zmij and xjb are in a league of their own. Broadly speaking, dtoa first has to find the shortest decimal representation of the floating-point input, and then format that decimal representation into a string. Zmij and xjb pull far ahead of the others mostly by speeding up the second part of that process.
uscale is quite good without the stringification, as are many other algorithms. I would say uscale's main strength isn't its speed, but rather its simplicity and, more importantly, the fact that it does both formatting and parsing using a single ~11 KiB table, which no other state-of-the-art algorithm offers (although yy comes close).