Comment by kccqzy
1 year ago
You are not getting the point of my comment or the original article. It's clear to me that the kind of complexity being talked about in the article is cognitive complexity not computational complexity. It's not about choosing between an O(n) copying of data and O(1) in-place mutation; it's about choosing code that's easy to comprehend and maintain.
Their point is that you can't choose the cognitively simpler choice because of real world design constraints, such as not consuming all available RAM — i.e., because of essential complexity.
that's complexity introduced by your approach to the solution (using an inadequately large computer) rather than essential to the problem you're trying to solve
I think the crux is which side gets to be called "essential". Is it the abstract problem the code is intended for, or is it the real world we're living in. Mike Acton argues for the latter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX0ItVEVjHc)
And all this is heat rather than light because there is absolutely a significant fraction of concerns that both sides would agree are utterly incidental/accidental complexity.
4 replies →