I&#x27;m trying to think how the simple&#x2F;complex from this talk compare to the simple&#x2F;complex from &quot;Simple Made Easy&quot;.<p>The part about how features should be orthogonal does seem similar to the &quot;not entangled&quot; (and to DRY &#x2F; SRP).<p>The part about visible surface area -- garbage collection is &quot;simple&quot; because you can&#x27;t explicitly talk to it -- seems to be a closer match for &quot;easy&quot; tho, as do the examples (smell test: anything with &quot;and&quot; in the name probably means there are entangled concepts).<p>...huh. Which means that his concept of &quot;simple&quot; <i>does</i> in fact contain multiple things entangled together, or in other words is complicated. ;-)