4 ms·

> The trend in programming lately seems to be less to no comments and less to no documentation; and it is killing the joy I take in programming. Without comment

by jcadam 10y ago

> The trend in programming lately seems to be less to no comments and less to no documentation; and it is killing the joy I take in programming. Without comments the only way the next guy has a chance to understand the code is if you stick to lowest common denominator patterns and frameworks. You can't do anything that hasn't been done before. Enter Golang... a language smaller than even ANSI C. It's readable because if you've worked with Golang for more than a week, you basically know every language construct you'll encounter. As an aside, I've found Clojure to be one of the most "readable" languages I've ever seen, in that I can usually just go to the source code if I'm trying to figure out how to use a library I just pulled in from clojars.

ctz 10y ago
> Enter Golang... a language smaller than even ANSI C. It's readable because if you've worked with Golang for more than a week, you basically know every language construct you'll encounter. That's not really what readability is to me. For example, I consider this idiomatic golang code (from the standard library, no less) to be entirely unreadable: https://golang.org/src/crypto/tls/handshake_messages.go#L297 https://golang.org/src/crypto/tls/handshake_messages.go#L297 For me readability is more about suitable levels of abstraction. Languages can affect that by making abstraction longwinded, or expensive at runtime, or hard to compose.
- panic 10y ago
  It's ultimately subjective, but I think that code is readable: the variables are well-named and each line says exactly what it does. Abstraction makes it easier for you to think you understand what the code is doing, but if you want to really understand what's going on, you also have to understand how the abstraction is implemented. Straightforward code like this can be understood directly, without having to dig through layers of function calls.
  - catnaroek 10y ago
    If you think that code is readable, could you correctly write all pre/post-conditions in between statements?
    - panic 10y ago
      I think that's a little different. Reading code almost never involves analyzing it to that degree. Usually you're just trying to figure out what part is broken or where you need to add some new functionality.
      - catnaroek 10y ago
        The meaning of an imperative program is given in terms of Hoare triples. If you can't produce such triples on demand, then you don't understand the program in question.
- EdiX 10y ago
  > For example, I consider this idiomatic golang code (from the standard library, no less) to be entirely unreadable Really? It's a binary parser that's parsing data from a byte array and stuffing the results into a struct, it seems pretty straightforward.
catnaroek 10y ago
> It's readable because if you've worked with Golang for more than a week, you basically know every language construct you'll encounter. If you've used Brainfuck for more than 5 minutes, you already know the entire language. Is it the most readable language ever designed? > I can usually just go to the source code if I'm trying to figure out how to use a library I just pulled in from clojars. Will a cursory read of the source code either tell you how the library deals with corner cases, or convince you that such corner cases don't exist?
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  And the source code doesn't tell you why something was done. Why is this message expected to be only 42 bytes long or less? Is there a specification for it? I can see that someone grabs two adjacent bytes, pulls out 12 bits from them and puts them into a variable called "version": version = ((data[0] & 0x0F) << 8 | data[1]); But why? Is this still correct with the current specification of the message format? Who knows! And this is a best case, where "version" is a meaningful variable name.
  - catnaroek 10y ago
    My thoughts exactly.
- jcadam 10y ago
  > If you've used Brainfuck for more than 5 minutes, you already know the entire language. Is it the most readable language ever designed? Oh, come on... BF was specifically/pathologically designed to be unreadable. > Will a cursory read of the source code either tell you how the library deals with corner cases, or convince you that such corner cases don't exist? Um... no, not really (at least not a cursory glance), but readability certainly helps track down issues later when you do run into an unforeseen corner case. Language choice is all about trade-offs -- if things like this are what is most important to you, perhaps you would be happier with something like Haskell or Ada.
  - catnaroek 10y ago

by jcadam 10y ago

ctz 10y ago

> Enter Golang... a language smaller than even ANSI C. It's readable because if you've worked with Golang for more than a week, you basically know every language construct you'll encounter. That's not really what readability is to me. For example, I consider this idiomatic golang code (from the standard library, no less) to be entirely unreadable: https://golang.org/src/crypto/tls/handshake_messages.go#L297 https://golang.org/src/crypto/tls/handshake_messages.go#L297 For me readability is more about suitable levels of abstraction. Languages can affect that by making abstraction longwinded, or expensive at runtime, or hard to compose.

panic 10y ago
It's ultimately subjective, but I think that code is readable: the variables are well-named and each line says exactly what it does. Abstraction makes it easier for you to think you understand what the code is doing, but if you want to really understand what's going on, you also have to understand how the abstraction is implemented. Straightforward code like this can be understood directly, without having to dig through layers of function calls.
- catnaroek 10y ago
  If you think that code is readable, could you correctly write all pre/post-conditions in between statements?
  - panic 10y ago
    I think that's a little different. Reading code almost never involves analyzing it to that degree. Usually you're just trying to figure out what part is broken or where you need to add some new functionality.
    - catnaroek 10y ago
      The meaning of an imperative program is given in terms of Hoare triples. If you can't produce such triples on demand, then you don't understand the program in question.
EdiX 10y ago
> For example, I consider this idiomatic golang code (from the standard library, no less) to be entirely unreadable Really? It's a binary parser that's parsing data from a byte array and stuffing the results into a struct, it seems pretty straightforward.

catnaroek 10y ago

> It's readable because if you've worked with Golang for more than a week, you basically know every language construct you'll encounter. If you've used Brainfuck for more than 5 minutes, you already know the entire language. Is it the most readable language ever designed? > I can usually just go to the source code if I'm trying to figure out how to use a library I just pulled in from clojars. Will a cursory read of the source code either tell you how the library deals with corner cases, or convince you that such corner cases don't exist?

Jtsummers 10y ago
And the source code doesn't tell you why something was done. Why is this message expected to be only 42 bytes long or less? Is there a specification for it? I can see that someone grabs two adjacent bytes, pulls out 12 bits from them and puts them into a variable called "version": version = ((data[0] & 0x0F) << 8 | data[1]); But why? Is this still correct with the current specification of the message format? Who knows! And this is a best case, where "version" is a meaningful variable name.
- catnaroek 10y ago
  My thoughts exactly.
jcadam 10y ago
> If you've used Brainfuck for more than 5 minutes, you already know the entire language. Is it the most readable language ever designed? Oh, come on... BF was specifically/pathologically designed to be unreadable. > Will a cursory read of the source code either tell you how the library deals with corner cases, or convince you that such corner cases don't exist? Um... no, not really (at least not a cursory glance), but readability certainly helps track down issues later when you do run into an unforeseen corner case. Language choice is all about trade-offs -- if things like this are what is most important to you, perhaps you would be happier with something like Haskell or Ada.
- catnaroek 10y ago