> Readability is defined by the fact that anyone who understands the language shouldn't need to "know how to read it". Perhaps then this isn't C, but a languag

> Readability is defined by the fact that anyone who understands the language shouldn't need to "know how to read it". Perhaps then this isn't C, but a language compatible with (at least a few) C compilers. This language is something you can learn to read as effortlessly as you read other languages (perhaps more so), you simply haven't learned how to read this yet. If you want to suggest readability is defined in that way and no other, how can someone who does not know this language make a statement about its readability? I'm not sure I'm convinced with this line of thinking, because it's incredibly exclusionary, just watch: > I do wonder what advantages you attribute to this style which you think justifies any potential trade-off in [me being unable to read it]? What is gained for such a potential expense? Why would anyone want your input on something you do not understand? Why would anyone write in Chinese if you cannot understand Chinese? What is the point in this kind of definition of "readability"? Does that make sense? Surely it's much more useful to talk instead about what the capability of the programmer is that can read and write and maintain code written this way, instead of the possible missed opportunities of the programmer that cannot?