5 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoWhy 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 agoBecause I'm not speaking to someone who speaks that way. Arthur Whitney once wrote: One day I asked him, "Roger, do you do math in English or Cantonese?" He smiled at me and said, "I do it in Cantonese because it's faster and it's completely regular."
- useragent86 7y agoThe point you have made repeatedly is that other programmers should aspire to use the style you prefer, even if they currently find it difficult to read. In this comment you make the opposite point: that one should write in a style readers will most easily understand as they currently are. You may think, because one example is of code and the other of prose, that those points are not in conflict--but they are.