Now, to give a concrete example. There was a C++ PR introducing an interface taking an argument of type int representing a duration. I suggested using std::chrono::duration (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/chrono/duration), and I was overruled on the basis that "an int is simpler". To have context if you are not too familiar with C++:
- std::chrono::duration is part of the C++ standard library
- It's a wrapper on top of an arithmetic type just giving it "duration" meaning. It's of the same size as the wrapped arithmetic type.
- Yes, you can argue it's more complex since it adds a bunch of templated code on top of a language built-in type.
I'm going to guess that's not what you had in mind with your "Simple > Complex" advise. If so, that's what happens with any advice, even with simple one liners: somebody will take it to justify some crazy decision.
Simple vs Complex should always be evaluated holistically.
Each file could be simple but if they are in 5 level of inheritance, then it's not simple as a whole. Same with 10 different way to do the same thing or 3 different class that can be used to the same effect, it's not.
Your case is clearly adding complexity as the new class have no reason of existence, as it's just rebuilding part of the standard library which your compiler would likely have included anyways. The suggestion is clearly a bad one but our industry is filled with people who are either incapable of adequately applying "Simple > Complex" or don't believe in it. That's why enteprise FizzBuzz exist.
Now, to give a concrete example. There was a C++ PR introducing an interface taking an argument of type int representing a duration. I suggested using std::chrono::duration (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/chrono/duration), and I was overruled on the basis that "an int is simpler". To have context if you are not too familiar with C++:
- std::chrono::duration is part of the C++ standard library
- It's a wrapper on top of an arithmetic type just giving it "duration" meaning. It's of the same size as the wrapped arithmetic type.
- Yes, you can argue it's more complex since it adds a bunch of templated code on top of a language built-in type.
I'm going to guess that's not what you had in mind with your "Simple > Complex" advise. If so, that's what happens with any advice, even with simple one liners: somebody will take it to justify some crazy decision.