Talk:KISS principle/Archives/2014

Categories?
Since KISS is marked as both a Software development philosophies and a Programming principles, and since SDPs are composed of PPs KISS is showing up twice in List_of_software_development_philosophies. Anyone mind if I drop the SDP category? is this the correct thing to do? QueBurro (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hypocrisy
"KISS principle states that design simplicity should be a key goal and unnecessary complexity avoided" I LOL'd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhard (talk • contribs) 07:06, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
 * Hypocrisy? Are you sure you didn't mean situational irony? - Soulkeeper (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's both hypocritical and ironic that mickey-pedia's definition of the KISS principle is so confused, and confusing. 72.16.17.161 (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Too many variants
Does this article really need an example for every possible variant of KISS? The current list is extremely long. I deleted some of the more far fetched ones. WackoJacko (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. I think we really need to go through this and weed out all the unsourced ones.  I've gone through the list and all have exact phrase matches on Google but really we need good, authoritative sources for every expansion - finding a single web page with a particular expansion is not acceptable - they need to be as reliably sourced as everything else around here.  Added to that, of course, there way they are listed here gives disproportionate prominence to fringe expansions which is misleading through undue weight.


 * I'm going to remove Keep It Short and Sweet now, because even if there is a match found, and even if there is a reliable source for it, that is clearly a different concept (favouring brevity rather than simplicity) and so does not belong on this page. CrispMuncher (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me.WackoJacko (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "I've gone through the list and all have exact phrase matches on Google" --- But, but... what if those pages used wikipedia as their source? It's the legendary foo-foo bird! In internet form! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.17.161 (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

More references
I think it would be a good idea to add some more references to this article. Maybe even reference each variant of KISS. That way it would avoid any "original research" tags, etc. What do you think? Wacko Jack O   12:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think was this article really needs is a "big bang" edit where reliable sources are added to those than can be defended and the ones that can't weeded out in one fell swoop. Then it can be maintained and the unlikely new additions quickly removed simply because they are unsourced, providing a certain amount of immunity to the "just one more" and "everyone I know says..." contingent. CrispMuncher (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC).


 * Yeah. Totally. In the meantime, let's just slap a bunch of tags on there at the top and wait a few years to see if anyone does anything about it. 72.16.17.161 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

December 2009

 * I have never heard "Keep It Simple and Stupid;" I've only heard "Keep it Simple, Stupid." The comments below also refer to "Keep It Simple, Stupid," and no one below refers to "Keep It Simple and Stupid."  I'd like to take out reference to "Keep It Simple and Stupid."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.139.154 (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with removing it is the Johnson etymology documented in the body of the article. I agree a re-write could make the predominant usage clearer.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The current wording is
 * 'KISS is an acronym for the design principle "keep it simple and stupid", most commonly read as the backronym "keep it simple, stupid!"'
 * I would think that this wording is sufficiently clear: it says that KISS is "most commonly read as" the more "agressive" version, without omitting the fact that the original (and still current) meaning is the "and" version. Even today some people may want to use the latter, especially in slightly more formal situations (exclusing classrooms and between co-workers) where calling someone "stupid", even jokingly, would not be acceptable.  For example, Google Scholar gives many hits for the "and" version in technical papers, both pre and post Wikipedia.  All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. When you remove the "required decorations" (bolding and required reference superscripts), the actual English does read pretty clearly.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * omfg... you people don't understand KISS at all. you're not qualified to work on the definition. 72.16.17.161 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)