Re:Thank You, Guido
by jodrellblank on Wednesday October 30, 2019 @09:48PM
(#21404933)
Readability isn't just the inverse of code golf, but that's how it's often talked about. We want a clear picture in a few well chosen words, but writing padded with low effort filler is not clear, it's a drag. Whatever the answer is, it's not "shortest code possible" but it's also not "longest code possible". Given that, it seems quite plausible that the answer is "whatever you have learned to read is readable, and what you haven't, isn't".
We have ideas of a "grade 6 reading level", do we have such a scale for code? If not, why not?
Re:Thank You, Guido
by therealdrag0 on Wednesday October 30, 2019 @04:40PM
(#21402425)
Love the analogy. I'm a SE with a English degree. Maybe that is why I care so much (more than those around me) about editing code and finding the readability sweet spot.
Re:Thank You, Guido
by egypturnash on Wednesday October 30, 2019 @04:49PM
(#21402527)
Hemmingway.
I’ve been thinking again lately about little bits I picked up via osmosis and my own early creative writing experiences. In fact I was just noting a couple weeks ago how refactoring resembles an exploratory writing exercise.
I think we need to embrace the creative writing similarities. Would we ever celebrate an author who published efficient, dense and cryptic text? Rarely.
One of the things we do want is someone who paints a clear picture in a few well chosen words. Another is to be inspired. Tricked or bored are not on that list.