Good reminder of this important but imperfect guide to software design. There is some ambiguity on what "simplest" actually means. Still it helps keeping in mind that simple is rarely easy to find.
Ever wondered about how Windows 3 was architectured? This is an interesting read. It was really complex though, you can really tell it's in the middle of several transitions.
Indeed, if you can guarantee your materialized views to always be up to date, you might be able to get rid of some caching... and thus some complexity can be avoided.
Indeed, let's not fall for the marketing. It's better to write less code if it's enough to solve actual problems.
A good list of things to consider when designing systems. And indeed in case of success the result looks probably boring.
The contrary is indeed claimed too often. This is far from a simple protocol, and that's probably to be expected seeing its history and success.
Or why the microservice cargo cult which has been going on for a while now infuriates me. It totally ignores the complexity it brings.
Interesting article about expert generalists (also called "paint drip people" by Kent Beck). This is definitely a skill to foster in teams. The article is long enough that I'm not in agreement with everything in it. That being said there's a lot of food for thought here.
Interesting comparison of different definitions for software complexity (which is an ambiguous term to say the least). It leads to nice consequences when team dynamics are considered.
Nice simple fix in Git but with a large impact on backups. A good proof that profiling and keeping an eye on algorithmic complexity can go a long way in improving software.
A good reminder that the complexity of tests should be as low as possible.
Nice illustration on how you can hunt down complexity in your codebases. It is obviously a slow process but comes with nice benefits.
An honest attempt at "vibe coding"... but once again the conclusion is "when it grows to non-trivial size, I'm glad my experience allowed me to finish the thing myself".
Interesting new proof on the relationships between P and PSPACE. Let's see where this leads.
Or why it's hard to truly evaluate performance in complex systems. We often test things in the optimistic case.
A bit of an unusual view about cohesion. The approach is interesting though.
At some point the complexity is high enough that you indeed need more tools than only handcrafted tests to discover bugs.
Nice little article. It's a good way to point out that aiming for the lowest Big-O approach is often not what you want in terms of performance. Always keep the context in mind, and in doubt measure.
Personal backups don't have to be fancy... And probably shouldn't.
A good reminder of why you often don't want to follow an architecture pattern to the letter. They should be considered like guidelines and depending on your technical context you should properly balance the costs. Here is an example with the Ports and Adapters pattern in the context of an ASP.NET application.