Harness 实战指南

Before anything else: a thank you. Hundreds of thousands of you have used omp, reported what broke, suggested what was missing, and shaped what it became. This post and omp² itself exist because of you.

Upon hearing about omp², many of you jumped to ask, "but why?"

A while loop around a fetch sounds simple, but there's a reason OpenCode, Pi, OpenClaw and omp are all concurrently working on a complete refactor: this class of software did not exist before, and only by starting with the simple version, we could see the cracks to work towards a better one.

在 fetch 外包裹一个 while 循环听起来很简单，但 OpenCode、Pi、OpenClaw 和 omp 都在同时进行彻底的重构是有原因的：这类软件以前并不存在，只有从简单的版本开始，我们才能发现其中的缺陷，从而努力打造出更好的版本。

Unavoidable complexity needs an owner. At the moment, the conservation of complexity tips toward extensions and users, making it impossible to write reliable software on top of omp or Pi. I can already hear the "whaaat, it is so simple and pleasant to extend." Give me a few chapters to change your mind.

不可避免的复杂性需要一个所有者。目前，复杂性守恒倾向于扩展和用户，使得在 omp 或 Pi 之上编写可靠的软件变得不可能。我已经能听到“哇，扩展起来太简单、太愉快了。”给我几章的时间来改变你的想法。

Dijkstra wrote that "simplicity is prerequisite for reliability", and yet he is known for algorithmically solving pathfinding. Why not just brute force? He was not, at all, making the claim we now repeat as simple good, complex bad. The advice was to help implementers reason. We shamefully use it to excuse the implementer from reasoning.

Ousterhout gives ...