W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Is "simplicity" a useful architectural constraint?

From: Stephen van Egmond <svanegmond@tinyplanet.ca>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 16:05:54 -0500
To: "Cohen, Aaron M" <aaron.m.cohen@intel.com>
Cc: "'www-tag@w3.org'" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20020103210554.GA3426@tinyplanet.ca>
Cohen, Aaron M (aaron.m.cohen@intel.com) wrote:
> complexity = (time to implement) + (time to understand specification)
> simplicity = 1 / complexity

By this metric, the CSS2 specification is outrageously complex and not
simple at all.  Which, personally, I haven't found.  It's nearly 4
years old now, and you might say that support is solidifying now.

Keep in mind that we're talking about architecture, and not individual
specifications or technologies.

In software, software that has low complexity or high simplicity is
usually a pleasure to work with: it's easy to improve, refine, and
explore.  If some software modules need to be tossed, it's not a problem.

In the web architecture area, substitute "technology" for "software
modules" and you get an idea: are web technologies easy to improve,
refine, and explore?  If given technologies prove to be nightmares, is
it easy?

The highly interdependent nature of current XML-related standards tends
to decrease their simplicity and boost their complexity.  James Clark's
commentary before Christmas might provide some interesting insight on
that angle - see the other thread.

- Steve
Received on Thursday, 3 January 2002 16:14:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:03 GMT