> I'm operating under the assumption that most people have a definition of simplicity that's similar to mine.
Perhaps you shouldn't assume that. But whether you're right or wrong in assuming that most people have a definition of simplicity that's similar to yours, it's another step to say that Donovan and Kernighan's definition is wrong. It's that second step that I'm criticizing you for.
Plaugher has been very clear about what he means by "simplicity" in Go. (I suspect the same is true of Donovan and Kernighan, though I haven't read their intro.) So, yes, the word "simple" has a clearly defined meaning for them. It also has a different, perhaps less clearly defined, meaning for you.
Again, it's fine for you to disagree. But to say that their definition is wrong? That sounds both arrogant and childish. More to the point, it seems unlikely that you are right that their definition is [objectively] wrong.
[Edit: Where did Go come from? It came from trying to solve the problems of working on ten-million-line code bases for a decade or two. That experience gave them definite ideas about what "simplicity" means. It's fair to say that most people don't have that definition. But you don't have the right to say their definition is wrong unless you've worked in that environment long enough to know what the problems are.]
Perhaps you shouldn't assume that. But whether you're right or wrong in assuming that most people have a definition of simplicity that's similar to yours, it's another step to say that Donovan and Kernighan's definition is wrong. It's that second step that I'm criticizing you for.
Plaugher has been very clear about what he means by "simplicity" in Go. (I suspect the same is true of Donovan and Kernighan, though I haven't read their intro.) So, yes, the word "simple" has a clearly defined meaning for them. It also has a different, perhaps less clearly defined, meaning for you.
Again, it's fine for you to disagree. But to say that their definition is wrong? That sounds both arrogant and childish. More to the point, it seems unlikely that you are right that their definition is [objectively] wrong.
[Edit: Where did Go come from? It came from trying to solve the problems of working on ten-million-line code bases for a decade or two. That experience gave them definite ideas about what "simplicity" means. It's fair to say that most people don't have that definition. But you don't have the right to say their definition is wrong unless you've worked in that environment long enough to know what the problems are.]