I know that talk very well. And I still disagree with you that hardcoding the rules is not simple, just easy. It's always going to be simpler to implement code that's more specific (i.e. has less room for the unknown) than less. Or do you think there is anything Rich said that shows that not to be always true?
Rich didn't say it, if I remember correctly. But there are problems where a more general algorithm is simpler than a more specific straight-forward algorithm. Usually because you change the way you model the problem.
Otherwise, I have to take your word for it, because I cannot see your specific example.
