> Don't get cute I struggle with this. I don't necessarily write a lot of one-liners, but recently I solved a document parsing problem using regex, list compre

> Don't get cute I struggle with this. I don't necessarily write a lot of one-liners, but recently I solved a document parsing problem using regex, list comprehensions, zips, etc; generally what are considered "clever" language features to my peers. The problem-solving approach seemed straightforward enough: match labels, slice document, destruct into keys and values into separate list, transform into proper formats and eliminate errors, combine into list of tuples. I could repeat this pattern because the document was structured hierarchically. On one hand, I believe that by using these methods I've written code that is maintainable and less sloppy, and reflects the strongest understanding of the problem. I personally find these language features empowering when I solve the problem. On the other hand, because these features are not the simplest features, the learning curve for interpreting the code is higher. I didn't use any obfuscation methods to compress the code, but neither did I apologize for the usage of the above. What I wonder is: if we don't try to leverage higher-level language features, do we end up defaulting to a brute-force approach with is less contained and raise technical debt? You could hedge around this through liberal commenting, but I find it difficult to believe that avoiding thinking about the problem as being too "clever" is much better. Somewhere there must be a compromise.