[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

> Avoid using any complex abstractions or any overcomplicated syntactic sugar and you'll have a codebase that anyone can jump into and quickly be able to add features without introducing bugs (at least less likely).

The thing is what is complex abstraction changes with time. At one time, floating point, especially transcendental functions would have been a complex abstraction. Functions at one time were a complex abstraction. Classes and polymorphism were a complex abstraction. Pointers are a complex abstraction for a lot of people. Linear algebra is a complex abstraction. Transforms are a complex abstraction.

Many times “complex abstraction” just means “an abstraction I am not familiar with”.

Back in the 80’s most games were written in assembler. I am sure many people thought that C was a complex abstraction. I mean, instead of just doing a jmp to a location, now you had a stack and a calling convention and which registers to save and restore...

Since “complex abstraction” is often code for “unfamiliarity”, education, like what the original article is doing is very helpful in moving the state of the art forward. As people become familiar with new abstractions, that becomes the new baseline for “simple” code.

[Bjartr]

> Many times “complex abstraction” just means “an abstraction I am not familiar with”.

A lot of times it can also mean "an abstraction that my development environment is unaware of or otherwise has deficient tooling for"