Yes, if we're all trying to have a good time, we'd shoot heroin and be done with it. ;-) IMHO, we are group sharing to learn better ways to build startups, small businesses, and to better ourselves, co-workers, and companies with best practices - and to do it with fun and a twinkle in our eyes.
I did look at that wordmark comic -- I believe I ask a credible question: If complexity buys you nothing, then why make something complex? And, believe me, if you are thinking "Visitor" or "AbstractFactory" then I have already lost you. ;-)
Thank you for your comment about my C version. I wanted to make sure it was extensible and quite obvious -- because I write code to be read by humans as my 2nd goal (my first is that it works & meets the spec!). Knuth's Literate Programming taught me that. The other thing about that C solution is that it's simple and many people can understand it. One does not need to know the difference between a monad and a gonad to "get it".
My overall comment: Complexity: when required; otherwise, choose simple. Believe me, I have learned this lesson over and over again during my 45 years of programming.
> If complexity buys you nothing, then why make something complex? And, believe me, if you are thinking "Visitor" or "AbstractFactory" then I have already lost you. ;-)
I think maybe the disconnect here is that I work on products with a much larger scale than you may be accustomed to. My idea of complexity begins to blossom at scales past many boxes. For me, 25 interconnected machines is barely enough to register as a "big system". So perhaps I am just desensitized?
Abstraction is generally trying to find ways to mitigate complexity, not embrace it. At some point we need to have sympathy for the machines we run on to have efficient code, but at the same time you and I need to find good perspectives to write code at.
A more concrete example of this is my advice that people building distributed systems take a cue from Boundary and have systems rendezvous in Zookeeper rather than just using something like hardwired ports and /etc/hosts. You may think that "sounds complex" but it's actually a very simple solutin from our perspective as users of Zookeeper. It ends up being pretty nice the next time a giant storm takes out half of us-east-1 and you're frantically re-provisioning boxes to keep your service up.
Monoids are that kind of choice at the programming level.
> Complexity: when required; otherwise, choose simple. Believe me, I have learned this lesson over and over again during my 45 years of programming.
I think c_wraith's monoid example made the program simpler, cleaner, and less bug prone. If you think monoids are a "complex" idea, then my blog post has failed profoundly and I apologize for wasting your time.
I believe that efforts using trivial examples to show how complexity can be managed via certain abstractions are doomed to fail.
And that's a pity, because it makes abstractions harder to explain in a proper context.
You need an example where the complexity at least rears its ugly head before the abstraction starts to shine.
For many people, especially those not familiar with it at the time of the reading, the simple example using a manage huge complexity abstraction reeks of "complexity for its own sake" or "killing flies with a cannon" or "premature optimization" and it's natural because the example is not showing the strengths of the abstraction, rather its weaknesses.
> I believe that efforts using trivial examples to show how complexity can be managed via certain abstractions are doomed to fail.
I've received 5 emails and about 10 tweets from people saying, "I think I understand monoids better because your tutorial sat at the right level of abstraction and overhead for me to get."
So, I think I succeeded for 15 people. Which I am pretty damn happy about. Because whenever I write one of these I pretty much assume everyone will misread, misunderstand, or ignore 3/4 of my post. It's just my experience.
People who call the monoid abstraction "confusing" and "complexity for its own sake"... I just have to assume these people can't handle the discomfort of learning new concepts anymore and write them off as unreachable. It's not like I owe them anything. Because I'm pretty sure it's actually not confusing at all, it's just a different perspective.
The real irony is that for awhile I was deep in the OO and Ruby culture and said a lot of these same things. You can find them online if you know where to look. So I understand where these people are coming from and know that without their cooperation, I cannot explain anything at all.
FWIW, you can count me in. I've understood monoids better thanks to your article.
My comment was not a jab at your article, but a comment on how hard it is to find the proper abstraction level.
And that I fully understand people who'd say it is making things more complex for its own sake, and I'm not sure it necessarily is because they don't want to learn.
Yes, if we're all trying to have a good time, we'd shoot heroin and be done with it. ;-) IMHO, we are group sharing to learn better ways to build startups, small businesses, and to better ourselves, co-workers, and companies with best practices - and to do it with fun and a twinkle in our eyes.
I did look at that wordmark comic -- I believe I ask a credible question: If complexity buys you nothing, then why make something complex? And, believe me, if you are thinking "Visitor" or "AbstractFactory" then I have already lost you. ;-)
Thank you for your comment about my C version. I wanted to make sure it was extensible and quite obvious -- because I write code to be read by humans as my 2nd goal (my first is that it works & meets the spec!). Knuth's Literate Programming taught me that. The other thing about that C solution is that it's simple and many people can understand it. One does not need to know the difference between a monad and a gonad to "get it".
My overall comment: Complexity: when required; otherwise, choose simple. Believe me, I have learned this lesson over and over again during my 45 years of programming.