| ▲ | prerok an hour ago | |
I agree with your criticism of "the good enough" and "done with taste" dichotomy. I would like to comment on this, though: > that only want simple, that finding the most blunt approach is the only way. It has felt tasteless. Anti-ambitious. I am always aiming for simple. If it's simple, it's maintainable and can be easy to reason about. Doing that is hard work, though. I used to spend three iterations to achieve it: functions are simple, easy to reason about, properly named and composable. It's the opposite of blunt, though, so it might be that you meant something else with the term "simple" :) | ||