[necovek]

Nope, it is not inaccurate — but you are not wrong either.

Obviously, code will reflect the complexity of the problem.

But incidentally, most problems we solve with code are not that hard, yet most code is extremely complex — a lot more complex than the complexity inherent to the problem. And that's where you can tell an experienced, seasoned (and smart) developer who'd write code that's only complex where it needs to be, from an inexperienced one where code will be complex so it appears "smart".

[TheCoelacanth]

I think inexperienced developers write complex code because it's difficult to write simple code and they don't know how yet, not because they're trying to make it complex.

[chipdart]

> I think inexperienced developers write complex code because it's difficult to write simple code and they don't know how yet, not because they're trying to make it complex.

From what I've been seeing, inexperienced developers write complex code because they are trained with a bias towards accidentally complex code (i.e., how else would you show off design patterns), they have no experience in dealing with the tradeoffs of writing accidentally complex code, and they do not understand the problems they create for themselves and others by adding complexity where they do not need it.

I'd frame accidental complexity in the same class as dead code: inexperienced developers might be oblivious to the risk presented by codd that serves no purpose, but experienced developers know very well the ticking time bomb nature of it.

[necovek]

Yes, I was not trying to imply they do it on purpose, but I can see how it could be read that way.