You should watch the talk(s), as your analysis here is entirely missing the context. What you’re talking about is what Rich Hickey and Stu Halloway call “complicated”, which is different from what they call “complex”.

I've seen them. They are nice and very alluring. So are a lot of false things. :) And I should note that I am mainly asserting this as false so that I can further explore the idea.

The idea to generate a new word that is hard to blur from existing ones and depends entirely on context is amusing in this context.

That is, what separates complicated from complex is one of context. Yet... contexts change. And often the first thing you do when building a solution to a problem is to reduce the problem to something easier to solve.

In this angle, I fully agree. Simplify your problem as much as you can. But do not be misled into thinking you can keep it simplified. As you add in more and more of the realities of the problem, they will reflect in the solution. And, often, the worst thing you can do is to try and cling to the "simple" solution that solved a different problem.

That is, understand the simple things well. See how they map onto the complicated things. Don't cling to the idea that they can be merely composed into the complicated solution. Often, several simple solutions can be subsumed by a more complicated one. Much in the same way that higher math can subsume lower maths.

> Simplicity would be to have a single mechanism for landing the Curiosity. Not 3. With one of them being a crane drop from a hovering rocket!?

Why? Simple, in the way Rich Hickey advocates, means the opposite of complex, which means that things are woven together. You can have many landing strategies without them being tightly coupled together. A huge system isn't necessarily complex.

That is the catch, all three landing strategies were coupled together. You couldn't do one without the one before it. More, previous steps had to take into account the baggage (literal) that was necessary to perform later steps.

If that's the best they could do and what got the job done, good. It's as simple as was possible and necessary. What exactly does this prove against simplicity, again?

The difference between "simple" and "as simple as possible" is the crux.

Mainly, the problem is that these speeches all talk about keeping things simple. In many problems, this can't be done. Understanding the simple helps. But the actual solution will not be simple. So any newspeak to get around that is just annoying.

Why not?

See my above post. As simple as possible is a far cry from simple. That is all I am saying.

I extend that into saying that people that can understand complicated things, as well, will have an advantage.

A simple system can solve complicated things. When Rich Hickey talks about simple, he is referring to tight coupling, "death by specificity" and hard to understand concurrency. Having a system that does multiple things, isn't necessarily a complicated system. A Mars landing, which in itself is a difficult (though not necessarily complex) problem, can be solved by a simple system. An example of this is Unix. A simple system that does complicated things.

I thought you were speaking about different strategies, but in this case you're describing three different stages of an overall landing strategy. That doesn't sound complex.