3 ms·
When you write "less code" I see "less readable" and therefore "less maintainable" and more that can go wrong. Less code should not be the goal.
by autotune 9y ago
When you write "less code" I see "less readable" and therefore "less maintainable" and more that can go wrong. Less code should not be the goal.
- tropshop 9y agoCode is a liability.
- autotune 9y agoHaving a dead code base in 3 years because the author left and nobody else wants to decipher it and contribute back is a bigger liability.
- ktta 9y agoThe irony here is OpenVPN's code is terrible, unmaintainable and verbose while strongSwan is much better maintained. (OpenBSD's IPSec stack is on another level)
- delinka 9y agoDon't confuse "less code" with "fewer characters and/or lines." Sure, you can write "less code" by implementing trickery in compact bitwise C operators (or, $DEITY forbid, writing a Perl one-liner.) But I've never seen the phrase "less code" to describe that situation. I see "less code" used to mean that the solution has been distilled down to the essentials without fluff. For example, no need to write a full-featured JSON parsing library when a simple decode-to-native-dictionary will do. I don't have a good example for VPN-related code.
- autotune 9y agoI've never seen the phrase "less code" used as a benefit to describe a code base as a benefit so something along the lines of an eye gouging Perl one-liner is what comes to mind. Using some existing module or library rather than building your own from scratch is absolutely something I would agree with.
- 6t6t6t6 9y agoLess code can also be the consequence of having less superfluous features.