All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Sick of Simple

samtregar on 2004-11-04T19:20:32

I'm a frequent reader of Freshmeat. I love finding new open-source projects, particularly when they're still in active development. What I don't love is reading over and over again about how project X is specially designed for simplicty. Example:

My Blog aims to be simple to use while taking care of many advanced features for the user.

Yes, of course you're aiming for simplicity! Aren't we all? Do these developers really believe that everyone else designs with complexity in mind? And as feature-creep sets in will they revise their stated goal? Not likely!

And don't get me started about "lite"!

-sam

Euphemism

chromatic on 2004-11-04T20:48:23

"Aiming for simplicity" is usually a euphemism for "I've just started this system from scratch and it doesn't do anything yet."

Not all of us...

Elian on 2004-11-04T21:18:47

Can't say that "aiming for simplicity" has ever been one of my goals... :-P

No

djberg96 on 2004-11-04T22:15:46

Yes, of course you're aiming for simplicity! Aren't we all?

Obviously you haven't talked to enough Java developers.

Simple*r*

Juerd on 2004-11-04T22:59:17

Usually, when something states that it is simple, they mean that it is simpler than what was already out there.

I sort of regret the name DBIx::Simple. Yes, it is simpler than DBI, but I never designed for simplicity. I designed for usability and readability, and simplicity is in this case just a tool.

Still, from a Perl module marketing POV, ::Simple works. For some reason, people pick ::Simple or ::Lite before even considering other alternatives.

Oh, and I do think some people design for complexity. One word: Microsoft.

Re:Simple*r*

samtregar on 2004-11-04T23:20:28

Usually, when something states that it is simple, they mean that it is simpler than what was already out there.

Yup, that's pretty obvious. But so what? Most new projects start out simpler than their older alternatives. And as time goes on they'll get more complicated as they expand to fill nearby niches.

I sort of regret the name DBIx::Simple.

Good! It's a terrible name. It tells me almost nothing about the module that I couldn't already tell from DBIx. Just by writing a DBIx module you must be trying to make something simpler!

Still, from a Perl module marketing POV, ::Simple works. For some reason, people pick ::Simple or ::Lite before even considering other alternatives.

Yup, people sure are dumb!

Oh, and I do think some people design for complexity. One word: Microsoft.

They probably still think they're going for simplicity. They just have a completely bizarre way of defining it!

-sam

Re:Simple*r*

bart on 2004-11-05T01:30:57

I sort of regret the name DBIx::Simple.
Then rename it. What name would you want it to have?

Re:Simple*r*

Juerd on 2004-11-05T20:51:52

I'm not about to rename it. It's still simple, another name is hard to invent, and this name for some reason attracts users :)

just to be snarky

lachoy on 2004-11-05T04:24:53

First line of description in HTML::Template README
This module attempts make using HTML templates simple and natural.

:-)

Re:just to be snarky

samtregar on 2004-11-05T04:47:21

Heh. I was afraid to look. I knew I must have done it somewhere! Well, I'm sick of old me too then. I must have written that in 1999.

-sam