hodlbod on Nostr: You're right, my use of simplicity/complexity is backwards according to Rich Hickey. ...
You're right, my use of simplicity/complexity is backwards according to Rich Hickey. What I meant was that proliferating standards make room for complexity within a single spec. Using a single spec for multiple closely related UX's forces the spec to not be opinionated.
My point is that "doing something well" is subjective. Two clients might want to do the "same" thing, but differently. This requires agreeing on a kernel data format and diverging in how those clients infer meaning from what is explicit in it. Like, instead of prescribing that every thread has to exist on a board, just let threads be their own thing — they can be organized by nip 51 list, topic, nip 29 group, relay, author, whatever. I don't think we should be over-prescriptive in specs, because ironically it introduces complexity as different clients try to bend the spec to what they want to accomplish. This results in combinatorial complexity. While if the spec is very minimal, yes there are limits to the functionality, but those are well understood and can be managed.
My point is that "doing something well" is subjective. Two clients might want to do the "same" thing, but differently. This requires agreeing on a kernel data format and diverging in how those clients infer meaning from what is explicit in it. Like, instead of prescribing that every thread has to exist on a board, just let threads be their own thing — they can be organized by nip 51 list, topic, nip 29 group, relay, author, whatever. I don't think we should be over-prescriptive in specs, because ironically it introduces complexity as different clients try to bend the spec to what they want to accomplish. This results in combinatorial complexity. While if the spec is very minimal, yes there are limits to the functionality, but those are well understood and can be managed.