Sadly, the opposite of simplexity can't be complicity,
because complexity already means "the state of being
involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing".
What about adding an "-ic", "-ous", "-ian", "-icity", "-ify"
suffix to some deliberately complicated computer language?
befunge ==> befungeic, befungeious, befungeicity, befungeify
malbolge ==> malbolgeic, malbolgeian, malbolgeicity, malbolgeify
Hmm... :)
-Jon
* Dibyo ([email protected]) [120426 19:47]:
> On 25 April 2012 21:57, Jon Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > simplexity
> > ----------------------
> > http://www.artima.com/intv/simplexity.html
> >
> > "Simplification" that makes something harder to understand.
> >
> > Anders Hejlsberg:
> > When you take something incredibly complex and try to
> > wrap it in something simpler, you often just shroud the
> > complexity. You don't actually design a truly simple
> > system. And in some ways you make it even more complex,
> > because now the user has to understand what was omitted
> > that they might sometimes need. That's simplexity. So
> > to me, simplicity has to be true, in the sense that the
> > further down you go the simpler it gets. It shouldn't
> > get more complicated as you delve down."
>
>
> Hilarious. Prompts me to be a co-conspirator and propose *complicity* - the
> other side of the simplexity coin.
