Skip to main content

Simple made easy

·5 mins

Rich Hickey did a great talk at Strange Loop called “Simple Made Easy”. You should watch it.

When I tried to explain the talk to someone, I stumbled a lot and it was obvious to me that I didn’t really understand it. So I’m going through it again and turning it into a blog post, purely for my own gain.

This is roughly the first half of the talk. Not much of my own analysis or opinion is inserted, and I’ve pretty much stuck with Hickey’s illustrations and phrasings. Thus this post is pretty derivative. Oops.

Simple vs Easy

“Simple” means one thing, “easy” another. Simple is the opposite of complex. A thing is simple if it has no interleaving, if it has one purpose, one concept, one dimension, one task. Being simple does not imply one instance or one operation: it’s about interleaving, not cardinality. Importantly, this means that simplicity is objective.

Easy is the opposite of hard, or difficult. A thing is easy if it’s near to hand, if it’s easy to get at (location), if it’s near to our understanding (familiarity) or skill set or if it’s within our capabilities. This means that ease is relative.

Speaking English is dead easy for me, but that doesn’t mean that speaking English is intrinsically simple. I find French quite difficult. Little French children speak French all the time, and there’s always a part of me that thinks, “Boy, those kids are clever, being able to speak a foreign language at that age”, but that’s silly. It’s easy for them, it lies near to them.

This distinction between simple & easy is good one, and is useful in all sorts of areas. But how does it relate to software?

Constructs vs Artefacts

As programmers, when we make software we are working on constructs: source code, libraries, language concepts and so forth. Rich contends that we focus on the ease of use of those constructs: How many lines of code? How much boilerplate? Will new developers be familiar with our technology?

But all of this is secondary. What actually matters is the artefact, the running programs that users actually use. Does it do what it’s supposed to do? Does it do it well? Can we rely on it working well? Can we fix problems when they occur? Can we change it? You know, the interesting problems.

Thus we need to be assessing our constructs – our code, our technology choices – based on the attributes of the artefacts that we’ll create, not based on the experience of typing code in.


We can’t make something reliable if we don’t understand it. And, actually, everyone’s understanding is pretty limited. We can all only hold a small number of things in our head at once.

When things are complex, many parts are tied together by definition. You can’t pull out just one piece and consider it because it’s intertwined with other pieces. This creates an extra burden to understanding a system and thus makes it difficult to reason about the system.

You do need to reason about a system, both to know what to change and to be able to do so without introducing defects. Tests, refactoring, rapid deployment and all that are great, but to make a change to the system safely & without fear still requires you to be able to reason about it. Every bug in your product that was found in the field passed the type checker and passed all of the tests.  Your type system doesn’t tell you what change to make next in order to get the software you want any more than guard rails on a highway tell you how to get to Grandma’s.


Focusing on ease and ignoring simplicity means that you’ll go really fast in the beginning, but will become slower and slower as the complexity builds.

Focusing on simplicity will mean that you’ll go slower in the beginning, because you’ll have to do some work to simplify the problem space, but making sure that you only have intrinsic complexity means that your rate of development will remain at a high constant.

There are no actual numbers for this.

Complicating constructs

Many complicating constructs are available, familiar, succinctly described and easy to use. But none of that matters to end users. What matters is the complexity they yield. This complexity is incidental, it’s not intrinsic to the problem.

If we build things simply, then the resulting system is easier to debug, easier to change and easier to understand.

Compare a knitted castle to a castle made of Lego. The knitted castle might have been great fun to make, and might have been really easy if knitted using a loom and cutting edge knitting tools, but there’s no way that it’s easier to change than a Lego castle. It’s not about the ease of construction, it’s about the simplicity of the artefact.

How can we make software easier?

Well, we can install it to make it easier by location. We can learn it and try it to make it easier by familiarity. We can’t do much about our capabilities though. If we want software to be easier to comprehend, we are going to have to bring it down to our level. We have to make it simpler.

Take Lisp as an example. It’s hard for many people because they don’t have a Lisp installed, or their editor doesn’t support paren matching, but they can make it easier by installing a Lisp and getting a plugin for their editor. It’s also hard because it’s unfamiliar. Who’d have thought that parens could go on that side of the function? But you can gain that familiarity quickly enough.

But parens in Lisp are used for functions and for grouping data. That’s hard to get your head around, and that’s because it’s complex. It braids together two distinct notions.