[adzicg]

it's paradox in a sense that reducing complexity actually ends up increasing complexity; Tognazzini originally proposed it as a complaint against Tesler's Law ("Conservation of complexity"). Tesler observed that complexity stays the same when people try to reduce it. Tognazzini suggested that the complexity doesn't stay the same, but actually increases.

[crazygringo]

I can understand the concept of conservation of complexity -- that you can reduce steps ("complexity") for the user by automating those steps in the software and making the software more complex.

But then you don't need to build more features. The "conservation of complexity" obviously assumes that the feature set is static. Once you allow the feature set to grow, obviously complexity will increase.

So I still not only don't see the paradox, I continue to just see common sense. I don't see what's supposed to be new here.

[sharpshadow]

Technically the complexity is done by somebody to reduce the complexity for somebody. If it would be 1:1 it would stay the same, but since one solution can be copied to many the complexity overall reduces. But the reduced complexity gets filled again. So reducing complexity increases complexity. That's the paradox.

[crazygringo]

> But the reduced complexity gets filled again. So reducing complexity increases complexity. That's the paradox.

But it doesn't increase if you just don't add new features. Nobody is forcing you too.

Reducing complexity doesn't add complexity. It simply doesn't. It's the adding further features that does. Which you have a choice over.

[sharpshadow]

Software is build upon and ideas are spread, when something exists if will be extended. In this context it will get more complex, that’s how I understand it at least.

I guess at some extend it’s in the human nature to never be sated.