Comments on: Joel on Simplicity http://www.adamduvander.com/simple/joel-on-simplicity Adam DuVander’s thoughts on keeping things simple. Mon, 09 Jan 2012 07:03:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: bubna http://www.adamduvander.com/simple/joel-on-simplicity/comment-page-1#comment-759 bubna Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:18:17 +0000 http://www.adamduvander.com/simple/joel-on-simplicity#comment-759 Maybe you did, or would if you could agree on the terms. I'd ask him about it, but i don't care enough. :) In any case, i think everyone likes it when complex things aren't complicated. And that, i think, is what you're chiefly advocating (and Joel does too when he goes off about OS shutdown options). 'Cause who needs to argue for simplicity in things that are already simple (non-complex)? Maybe you could change your blog to be called "Uncomplicated Complexity Rules" just to "clear" things up. ;-) Maybe you did, or would if you could agree on the terms. I’d ask him about it, but i don’t care enough. :)

In any case, i think everyone likes it when complex things aren’t complicated. And that, i think, is what you’re chiefly advocating (and Joel does too when he goes off about OS shutdown options). ‘Cause who needs to argue for simplicity in things that are already simple (non-complex)?

Maybe you could change your blog to be called “Uncomplicated Complexity Rules” just to “clear” things up. ;-)

]]> By: Adam http://www.adamduvander.com/simple/joel-on-simplicity/comment-page-1#comment-758 Adam Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:41:15 +0000 http://www.adamduvander.com/simple/joel-on-simplicity#comment-758 I think you read him right, Bubna. And my point, not clearly communicated (see Anonymous' comment above), was that thinking of simplicity merely as "few features" misses the point. Maybe Joel and I had the same point? I think you read him right, Bubna. And my point, not clearly communicated (see Anonymous’ comment above), was that thinking of simplicity merely as “few features” misses the point. Maybe Joel and I had the same point?

]]> By: bubna http://www.adamduvander.com/simple/joel-on-simplicity/comment-page-1#comment-757 bubna Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:59:26 +0000 http://www.adamduvander.com/simple/joel-on-simplicity#comment-757 i think the main issue is that Spolsky is ragging on "simplicity" when it just means "few features". I don't see that he has any real issue with elegance, clarity, un-complication, or efficiency. Or maybe i just read him the way i wanted. :) i think the main issue is that Spolsky is ragging on “simplicity” when it just means “few features”. I don’t see that he has any real issue with elegance, clarity, un-complication, or efficiency. Or maybe i just read him the way i wanted. :)

]]> By: Adam http://www.adamduvander.com/simple/joel-on-simplicity/comment-page-1#comment-756 Adam Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:49:03 +0000 http://www.adamduvander.com/simple/joel-on-simplicity#comment-756 Sometimes, sure. Everything can't be black and white, right? Sometimes, sure. Everything can’t be black and white, right?

]]> By: anonymous http://www.adamduvander.com/simple/joel-on-simplicity/comment-page-1#comment-755 anonymous Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:35:21 +0000 http://www.adamduvander.com/simple/joel-on-simplicity#comment-755 So, simplicity is complicated, you're saying. So, simplicity is complicated, you’re saying.

]]>