[chc]

> If you believe that our software systems are increasingly complex and that some aspect of the problems we're solving are essentially complex, then the strongest path towards simplicity lies in minimizing complexity incidental to the problems we're solving. One facet of programming which routinely introduces complexity is our tools, particularly our programming languages.

That is true, but I'm not sure the correlation you seem to be suggesting here — that complex tools breed complex programs — is realistic.

A lot of the time, complexity can either live in your tools or in your program. For example, garbage collection requires a more complicated toolset than manual memory management, but in return it removes the complexity of memory management from your code. Similarly, ASM is simpler than C, and Whitespace is simpler than Python, but most people will agree that a program written in the latter tends to be simpler than the same program written in the former.

[wonderzombie]

GC is an abstraction which, although complex in implementation, is something which makes your program simpler. So the correlation has less to do with how our tools are implemented, but the properties of the tools as we interact with them.

Also, simplicity, like security, is a trade-off. When performance is paramount, people will reach for C or assembly, and rightly so. Conversely if performance is not the #1 priority, developers feel free to use higher-level languages like Java or Ruby.

[wonderzombie]

Also, I would say that Whitespace being "simpler" than Python is a fallacy, or at a minimum a reductive reading of the word "simple." I doubt the rules for writing in ASM, C, or whitespace are all that simple, despite the building blocks being relatively simple or few.

Honestly, I'm just repeating variations on http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy.