Great prompt by @Brandon Hudgeons a while ago: You get to name an assertion the _ Paradox (fill in your last name). What do you choose? (Responses in thread plz.)

Reese Paradox: In many cases, removing accidental complexity makes software feel more complex.

(re: Reese Paradox: this is a very important thing to understand if, like me, you like to "simplify" - it turns out busy work actually serves a purpose and if you remove all of it, people lose themselves. You just can't think that quickly about complex systems.)

I would really appreciate further elaboration on this idea. Maybe in a new thread?

@ibdknox and @Kartik Agaram — Waiting eagerly for your paradoxen.

I thought I'd give others a chance first 😄 The Agaram Paradox: to get to better interfaces, expose your implementations.

Software is the hardest thing. Fuller version: cheap complexity has large costs that are hidden, long-term, and compounding.

Removing complexity from one part of a system often has the side effect of introducing complexity somewhere else.

Being a strong advocate of extreme simplicity and understandability of code; insisting that most Enterprise software is several orders of magnitude larger than necessary, and can be written such that the code corresponds very 1-to-1 with the human/business description / mental model (i.e. it should "read" very much like you'd explain it (e.g. what the program is and what the program does) to a human being) ... But being personally unable to communicate even the simplest idea in a concise or straightforward manner

Late, but: the parts of the system that are easier to represent to us are the ones that will be represented to us