[edoceo]

What? IME removing complexity removes costs. That's a good choice. I can't think of a case where it didn't happen. Of course this only works for the removable complexity, which is discovered through analysis (possibly iterative/recursive)

[alex_smart]

Time spent removing complexity is time not spent developing features. And your users/clients care more about features than complexity (which is completely invisible to them) or even speed. They don't even care if your app runs 10 times slower than it needs to, as long as it runs at an acceptable speed.

That is why software engineers are seldom rewarded at their companies for "removing complexity", only for finishing projects.

[torstenvl]

You're right that, given a set amount of programming time, working on features versus working on performance is zero-sum.

But that doesn't mean you should always work on features. If anything, it only means that feature-bloat is doubly bad, not only adding logic and binary size, but imposing opportunity cost.

Most users hate features. Nobody has ever sworn at their computer because they had to make a mess in Excel to use VLOOKUP() before XLOOKUP() was invented (even though I love XLOOKUP()). Plenty of swearing happens because the computer just won't respond or it's taking whole minutes to send each email when you're trying to leave work on Friday night.

[alex_smart]

> Plenty of swearing happens because the computer just won't respond or it's taking whole minutes

Of course, my point was that it is usually not beneficial to worry about performance until that happens. And when it does, improving the performance of the product becomes a project in its own right. Misbehaving parts of the software are diagnosed and fixed, usually by introducing even more complexity.

[edoceo]

Sounds like our companies and clients are very different. As for the feature/maintenance trade-off, a reasonable CBA will show the answer. I don't think it's quite as absolute as you've described.