4 ms·

The more symbols used, the less it looks like a human-consumable language (note: "looks like", not "is"). The more symbols, the harder it is to unpack the code

The more symbols used, the less it looks like a human-consumable language (note: "looks like", not "is"). The more symbols, the harder it is to unpack the code into (and restate in a) human language. Even in your head. IOW, if you're mostly monoligual, and you think about code in English (or whatever your preferred language is), more symbols can actually make it harder to think about the code. Trivial example: a = a+b is slightly easier to say (and think) in English than a += b

ealhad 8y ago
> The more symbols used, the less it looks like a human-consumable language I read this as “the more symbols used, the more it looks like mathematics”. I guess this is really a matter of personal taste :)
mmirate 8y ago
> Trivial example: a = a+b is slightly easier to say (and think) in English than a += b Native English speaker here. "+=" is pronounced "plus equals", meaning that you've got it backwards, with the margin being by the number of mental syllables taken by a - though if a really is "a", then that's only 1. However, the above considerations only cover recitation. Comprehension, especially in real-world scenarios, is another matter entirely. "a" might be some other, longer name (and probably amongst a set of long names with a common prefix/accessor). When I read "a = a + b", it takes me some amount of effort to verify whether the lvalue is in fact the same word as the lhs of the operator. When I read "a += b", that effort is not needed. The difference again is proportional to the length of a.