I didn't mean agreement as permission, but as having the same judgement. One person may say bash is the simplest, another that Makefile is even better, and third person will say they'll both become a mess, and it's simplest to use Python from the start, and so on.
Reasonable people may disagree where is the line of "but not simpler". Something that is "simple" to one person, is "primitive" to another.
If someone says they have a simple and elegant solution, but it requires their skills, is it really simpler than a "dumb" solution that more people can understand? (e.g. DB vs Excel? C vs JS?).
Everyone may be in agreement that things should be super simple, but there may be a choice between simplifying implementation vs simplifying operations. Or people may disagree about future requirements and argue that a solution that is the simplest now will hit a complex scaling problem later, and the total-lifetime-complexity of the product will be minimized by another solution instead.
I didn't mean agreement as permission, but as having the same judgement. One person may say bash is the simplest, another that Makefile is even better, and third person will say they'll both become a mess, and it's simplest to use Python from the start, and so on.
Reasonable people may disagree where is the line of "but not simpler". Something that is "simple" to one person, is "primitive" to another.
If someone says they have a simple and elegant solution, but it requires their skills, is it really simpler than a "dumb" solution that more people can understand? (e.g. DB vs Excel? C vs JS?).
Everyone may be in agreement that things should be super simple, but there may be a choice between simplifying implementation vs simplifying operations. Or people may disagree about future requirements and argue that a solution that is the simplest now will hit a complex scaling problem later, and the total-lifetime-complexity of the product will be minimized by another solution instead.