3 ms·

Explain in more detail why code isn't conversation? You are communicating a set of expectations about what a computer should do to both the computer and other h

• dang 11y ago
  What I said is that conversation isn't code. Not a commutative statement! That is, you seemed to be arguing that there was redundancy in my comment, similar to what I called busywork and noise in code. An interesting point, but my comment was conversation—not code—so it struck me as a non sequitur. Your comment hints at an insight into why we make code overcomplicated. But the superfluous complexity I'm talking about rarely strikes me as nuance, i.e. valuable enhancement for humans. It's mostly boilerplate to satisfy machines. It's no accident that "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute" is a line that came out of the Lisp mentality.