Simple is as simple does (JEP draft 8323335)

[Eirik Bjørsnøs]

Hi,

I acknowledge the following is easy to dismiss as just bikeshedding, but
please hang with me:

Is labeling something as "simple" an effective naming practice, especially
in a pedagogical context like we are faced with in this JEP?

simple: adjective
> 1. easily understood or done; presenting no difficulty.
> "a simple solution"


First, let me be bold and claim that nothing in programming is "easily
understood or done; presenting no difficulty". Anyone claiming so has
clearly lost empathy with the beginning learner! ;-)

Second, the lable "simple" suggest something about the things not fitting
into the "simple" bucket. If not simple, what are those things? Difficult?

Third, "easily understood" very much depends on who is trying to
understand. It may change over time as the learner gains understanding and
experience. Simple to Alice might not be simple to Bob.

...

As any complainer, I'm also too lazy to do the work to find a better
alternative. But perhaps "basic" could be a starting point:

basic: adjective
> 1. forming an essential foundation or starting point; fundamental.


This seems more stable to time, context and experience. Something
fundamental can be trusted to stay fundamental for a while.

Thanks (any sorry!),
Eirik.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/amber-dev/attachments/20240220/6852fe79/attachment.htm>