> > "One man's composition is another's conflation" - someone on Twitter >
I don't necessarily agree with the opening quote, but I thought it was an interesting one :) It is not uncommon to hear/read from the Clojure commmunity that "X complects a with b", hence X is bad, without giving further explanation. While I immensely acknowledge the framework of thought Rich has gave us with SME <http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy>, I feel that his message wasn't 100% simple, so it can be easy to mistake it for subtly different ideas. My problem with "X complects a with b" is that if you don't say *why/how*are a and b complected, they could just as well be composed instead. Recall from Rich's talk that complexity and cardinality are orthogonal: neither a fn that does N things or N fns that do one thing necessarily constitute a complex/simple design. Aspects that *do* distinguish complection from composition include interleavings, dependencies, and inconsistencies (all of them mentioned in * SME*). A common theme to them is that they all contribute to "blurring identity": telling one functionality from the other in a given system becomes harder. In my opinion, if we want to keep objectivity, which is part of the point of simplicity, enumerating the aspects that we deem 'complected' is not enough. So if you agree with me, please next time you take on this topic don't forget to make clear where do the complexities lie. Thanks for reading - Victor -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
