I'm trying to think how the simple/complex from this talk compare to the simple/complex from "Simple Made Easy".
The part about how features should be orthogonal does seem similar to the "not entangled" (and to DRY / SRP).
The part about visible surface area -- garbage collection is "simple" because you can't explicitly talk to it -- seems to be a closer match for "easy" tho, as do the examples (smell test: anything with "and" in the name probably means there are entangled concepts).
...huh. Which means that his concept of "simple" does in fact contain multiple things entangled together, or in other words is complicated. ;-)
The part about how features should be orthogonal does seem similar to the "not entangled" (and to DRY / SRP).
The part about visible surface area -- garbage collection is "simple" because you can't explicitly talk to it -- seems to be a closer match for "easy" tho, as do the examples (smell test: anything with "and" in the name probably means there are entangled concepts).
...huh. Which means that his concept of "simple" does in fact contain multiple things entangled together, or in other words is complicated. ;-)