4 ms·

This is not @pwd_mkdb's logic though, it's you who brought this to the extreme.

• coldtea 10y ago
  Not really. @pwd_mkdb said he defines readability as "less code to read". If that's the only criterion, then the parent just followed the logic. Or let's put it another way, if the definition of readability can't survive taking it to the extreme, it is flawed.
  • cgriswald 10y ago
    > If that's the only criterion, then the parent just followed the logic. wodenokoto offered up some reductio ad absurdum and you are calling it logic. It was not the only criterion. It was the only criterion that was explicit. There are implied criterion and most of us understand what pwd_mkdb means even if we don't necessarily agree with him.
    • coldtea 10y ago
      >It was the only criterion that was explicit. Well, even in itself, it is wrong. It's not just that other criteria apply too -- it's that it alone needs several caveats, as succinctness is quite orthogonal to readability (e.g. sometimes even needless boilerplate syntax that the compiler could infer by itself, make for better readability when present).
      • cgriswald 10y ago
        > Well, even in itself, it is wrong. I am not in disagreement with you about whether it is wrong, I am in disagreement with you about why it is wrong. The counter argument was that Y is wrong and X is Y, therefore X is wrong. While this is a valid argument, it is not sound, because X is not Y. > ... succinctness is quite orthogonal to readability ... There is a relationship between succinctness and readability. The relationship is definitely not directly proportional as the pwd_mkdb's post could be read to imply, but to say there is no relationship between the two is flatly absurd.