3 ms·

Your comment about this being like unreadable English is very astute and got me thinking. To me if someone says "m.c" is nice and readable, it's a bit like some

by smcl 7y ago

Your comment about this being like unreadable English is very astute and got me thinking. To me if someone says "m.c" is nice and readable, it's a bit like someone claiming Finnegan's Wake is. For anyone who is not aware, this is what Finnegan's Wake looks like: """ riverrun, past Eve and Adams, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth, Castle and Environs. Sir Tristram, violer d'amores, fr'over the short sea, had passencore rearrived from North Armorica on this side the scraggy isthmus of Europe Minor to wielderfight his penisolate war; nor had topsawyer's rocks by the stream Oconee exaggerated themselse to Laurens County's giorgios while they went doublin their mumper all the time.... """ The difference is that I don't think anyone makes the claim that Finnegan's Wake is readable or easy to work with. Everyone's pretty much agreed that this is a very unusual style that takes an enormous amount of time and effort to appreciate and understand. The style is fine, if it's someone's "thing" then great, more power to them. But what gets me is people pointing to this style of coding and feigning ignorance or surprise that others could find it troublesome and making a big point of saying "Well it's easy for me, I guess you're just not smart" when confronted about it

geocar 7y ago
> But what gets me is people pointing to this style of coding and feigning ignorance or surprise that others could find it troublesome and making a big point of saying "Well it's easy for me, I guess you're just not smart" when confronted about it Hey listen, I understand that other people find it troublesome. The thing is that I think it's something people can learn if they want, and I think there are benefits to doing so. I only object to the label "it's unreadable" because it demands the author (or someone else) make it "readable" to cure, when the right fix is to fix the programmer: to give them the experiences needed to be able to read it. That's admittedly not very easy for the novice reader- certainly it would be much better for them to write less dense and use a smaller vocabulary, and that's why, just with English, we start novice readers with less dense study materials that utilise a smaller vocabulary. However it's a mistake to think that just because business English is a bit more dense than Goodnight Moon, that it's unreadable, and it's a worse one to think its lack of accessibility is without some value to the writer. I should think people should want to seek out that value in exactly the same way.
- JadeNB 7y ago
  > I only object to the label "it's unreadable" because it demands the author (or someone else) make it "readable" to cure, when the right fix is to fix the programmer: to give them the experiences needed to be able to read it. Though I disagree with the claim of unreadability, for the reason you've mentioned—readability is a matter of conventions, never an absolute—I don't think it really 'demands' anything. If I were to call this a non-standard C coding style, then I don't think you or anyone would disagree; but that is just a statement of fact, not a demand to standardise it. I think a claim of unreadability can be read charitably in the same way, as a statement of the fact that "people used only to the standard C programming style will find this difficult to read", not any demand or even request that it be otherwise.
  - geocar 7y ago
    The ability to read this includes the ability to read "some standard C programming style", and it's for that reason I find charity challenging. If saagarjha means here be dragons they should say so: Fewer people would misunderstand them! But I think you and I both know this is not what they meant.
- useragent86 7y ago
  Why don't you write prose like this? Heylisten,Iunderstandthatotherpeoplefindittroublesome.Thethin gisthatIthinkit'ssomethingpeoplecanlearniftheywant,andIthinkt herearebenefitstodoingso.Ionlyobjecttothelabel"it'sunreadable "becauseitdemandstheauthor(orsomeoneelse)makeit"readable"tocu re,whentherightfixistofixtheprogrammer:togivethemtheexperienc esneededtobeabletoreadit.That'sadmittedlynotveryeasyforthenov icereadercertainlyitwouldbemuchbetterforthemtowritelessdensea nduseasmallervocabulary,andthat'swhy,justwithEnglish,westartn ovicereaderswithlessdensestudymaterialsthatutiliseasmallervoc abulary.Howeverit'samistaketothinkthatjustbecausebusinessEngl ishisabitmoredensethanGoodnightMoon,thatit'sunreadable,andit' saworseonetothinkitslackofaccessibilityiswithoutsomevaluetoth ewriter.Ishouldthinkpeopleshouldwanttoseekoutthatvalueinexact lythesameway.
  - geocar 7y ago
bakul 7y ago
Speaking of literature, have you read Edward A. Abbott's 1884 book "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions"? Some of the comments here make me think of Flatlanders! http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/201 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/201

by smcl 7y ago

geocar 7y ago

> But what gets me is people pointing to this style of coding and feigning ignorance or surprise that others could find it troublesome and making a big point of saying "Well it's easy for me, I guess you're just not smart" when confronted about it Hey listen, I understand that other people find it troublesome. The thing is that I think it's something people can learn if they want, and I think there are benefits to doing so. I only object to the label "it's unreadable" because it demands the author (or someone else) make it "readable" to cure, when the right fix is to fix the programmer: to give them the experiences needed to be able to read it. That's admittedly not very easy for the novice reader- certainly it would be much better for them to write less dense and use a smaller vocabulary, and that's why, just with English, we start novice readers with less dense study materials that utilise a smaller vocabulary. However it's a mistake to think that just because business English is a bit more dense than Goodnight Moon, that it's unreadable, and it's a worse one to think its lack of accessibility is without some value to the writer. I should think people should want to seek out that value in exactly the same way.

JadeNB 7y ago
> I only object to the label "it's unreadable" because it demands the author (or someone else) make it "readable" to cure, when the right fix is to fix the programmer: to give them the experiences needed to be able to read it. Though I disagree with the claim of unreadability, for the reason you've mentioned—readability is a matter of conventions, never an absolute—I don't think it really 'demands' anything. If I were to call this a non-standard C coding style, then I don't think you or anyone would disagree; but that is just a statement of fact, not a demand to standardise it. I think a claim of unreadability can be read charitably in the same way, as a statement of the fact that "people used only to the standard C programming style will find this difficult to read", not any demand or even request that it be otherwise.
- geocar 7y ago
  The ability to read this includes the ability to read "some standard C programming style", and it's for that reason I find charity challenging. If saagarjha means here be dragons they should say so: Fewer people would misunderstand them! But I think you and I both know this is not what they meant.
useragent86 7y ago
Why don't you write prose like this? Heylisten,Iunderstandthatotherpeoplefindittroublesome.Thethin gisthatIthinkit'ssomethingpeoplecanlearniftheywant,andIthinkt herearebenefitstodoingso.Ionlyobjecttothelabel"it'sunreadable "becauseitdemandstheauthor(orsomeoneelse)makeit"readable"tocu re,whentherightfixistofixtheprogrammer:togivethemtheexperienc esneededtobeabletoreadit.That'sadmittedlynotveryeasyforthenov icereadercertainlyitwouldbemuchbetterforthemtowritelessdensea nduseasmallervocabulary,andthat'swhy,justwithEnglish,westartn ovicereaderswithlessdensestudymaterialsthatutiliseasmallervoc abulary.Howeverit'samistaketothinkthatjustbecausebusinessEngl ishisabitmoredensethanGoodnightMoon,thatit'sunreadable,andit' saworseonetothinkitslackofaccessibilityiswithoutsomevaluetoth ewriter.Ishouldthinkpeopleshouldwanttoseekoutthatvalueinexact lythesameway.
- geocar 7y ago

bakul 7y ago

Speaking of literature, have you read Edward A. Abbott's 1884 book "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions"? Some of the comments here make me think of Flatlanders! http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/201 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/201