3 ms·

Okay. Let's look at some Knuth! https://github.com/wkoszek/cweb/blob/master/cweave.w#L382 https://github.com/wkoszek/cweb/blob/master/cweave.w#L382 https://gi

by geocar 7y ago

Okay. Let's look at some Knuth! https://github.com/wkoszek/cweb/blob/master/cweave.w#L382 https://github.com/wkoszek/cweb/blob/master/cweave.w#L382 https://github.com/wkoszek/cweb/blob/master/examples/oemacs.w#L736 https://github.com/wkoszek/cweb/blob/master/examples/oemacs.... Now I don't see names signalling his intent. What I do see is that the code is arranged carefully into a narrative with the following property: code you want to read next is either immediately or before the code that uses it (or even just that piece of functionality). Little care seems to be given to what things are called directly -- almost the exact opposite of what you're suggesting.

darkerside 7y ago
A little unfair to drop folks in the middle of the module. If you picked up War and Peace in Book 2, Chapter 14, you'd probably be pretty confused too. I realize the program as a whole suffers from similar faults, but let's try to be fair.
klibertp 7y ago
Well, this made me smile a little (nothing to do with names): https://github.com/wkoszek/cweb/blob/master/examples/oemacs.w#L781-L783 https://github.com/wkoszek/cweb/blob/master/examples/oemacs.... Edit: Ok, I skimmed most of both files, and my initial impression seems to hold: there are short names, some are abbreviations, some are acronyms, but I didn't see (could have missed it) any "meaningless" name (ie. one that wouldn't have an expanded form of one or more words). But it's kind of beside the point with Knuth's work. Of course he uses short names: he just spent 3 pages of (carefully edited and typeset!) text to hammer its meaning into your mind. There's no way for you to misunderstand, or not understand, what the symbol signifies - so what does it matter what symbol it is, exactly? [EDIT2: it matters when typing] If you (anyone reading this, I mean) want to use these as an excuse for using meaningless and short names as identifiers, remember: these are ok if bundled with 80 lines of narrative explaining them...
- geocar 7y ago
  Of course these are "ok", but it's not because there's "80 lines of narrative". Sometimes there's only one or two. Sometimes there's none. What makes this "ok" is that it's clear that the author intends you to read all of it. Code. Literature. Everything. I don't know why, but for some reason, a lot of people think it's okay to "scan" or "skim" code. To just not read it. They wouldn't think of doing this to a good novel, but they'll do this to code. Literate programs trick you into reading a novel with bits of code in-between, such that you can digest the code and non-code parts at the same time really aiming to cement both your (the reader's) understanding, as well as the author (the programmer's) understanding†. But listen, we can choose to actually read code too. It's hard. Much harder than just "scanning" it, but we can do it. And with some care and taste, that code can actually be as good as "80 lines of narrative". [†]: Mathematics has been doing this for years because it's often really hard to understand complex things from the notation alone, especially when you have to invent a new notation just to discuss this new thing you're thinking about!
  - klibertp 7y ago
    Well, the "80 lines" was supposed to be a joke, guess it failed... Anyway: > And with some care and taste, that code can actually be as good as That's true. Also because modern languages are more flexible than the ones in the 80s - probably, I wasn't around back then, but I remember from learning C that there was "old style" where all variables had to be declared at the beginning of the function, and that "new style" (second half of 90s?) was to declare them at the point of use. My guess would be that this and other similar limitations were the reason for writing CWEB. The order and flow of the presentation is very important to Knuth, so he wrote a tool which allowed him the freedom of putting text and code in the way he wanted. Modern languages are in general flexible enough to make this a non-issue, as the presentation can be safely included in the source, and you have much freedom in structuring (ordering) the code, too. CoffeeScript is one example of "literate programming in the modern world". That being said, I think you greatly underestimate how much care is needed to write code like this. I'd guess that not many professional programmers could do this - it's that hard. But yeah, beautiful when executed well.

by geocar 7y ago

darkerside 7y ago

A little unfair to drop folks in the middle of the module. If you picked up War and Peace in Book 2, Chapter 14, you'd probably be pretty confused too. I realize the program as a whole suffers from similar faults, but let's try to be fair.

klibertp 7y ago

Well, this made me smile a little (nothing to do with names): https://github.com/wkoszek/cweb/blob/master/examples/oemacs.w#L781-L783 https://github.com/wkoszek/cweb/blob/master/examples/oemacs.... Edit: Ok, I skimmed most of both files, and my initial impression seems to hold: there are short names, some are abbreviations, some are acronyms, but I didn't see (could have missed it) any "meaningless" name (ie. one that wouldn't have an expanded form of one or more words). But it's kind of beside the point with Knuth's work. Of course he uses short names: he just spent 3 pages of (carefully edited and typeset!) text to hammer its meaning into your mind. There's no way for you to misunderstand, or not understand, what the symbol signifies - so what does it matter what symbol it is, exactly? [EDIT2: it matters when typing] If you (anyone reading this, I mean) want to use these as an excuse for using meaningless and short names as identifiers, remember: these are ok if bundled with 80 lines of narrative explaining them...

geocar 7y ago
Of course these are "ok", but it's not because there's "80 lines of narrative". Sometimes there's only one or two. Sometimes there's none. What makes this "ok" is that it's clear that the author intends you to read all of it. Code. Literature. Everything. I don't know why, but for some reason, a lot of people think it's okay to "scan" or "skim" code. To just not read it. They wouldn't think of doing this to a good novel, but they'll do this to code. Literate programs trick you into reading a novel with bits of code in-between, such that you can digest the code and non-code parts at the same time really aiming to cement both your (the reader's) understanding, as well as the author (the programmer's) understanding†. But listen, we can choose to actually read code too. It's hard. Much harder than just "scanning" it, but we can do it. And with some care and taste, that code can actually be as good as "80 lines of narrative". [†]: Mathematics has been doing this for years because it's often really hard to understand complex things from the notation alone, especially when you have to invent a new notation just to discuss this new thing you're thinking about!
- klibertp 7y ago
  Well, the "80 lines" was supposed to be a joke, guess it failed... Anyway: > And with some care and taste, that code can actually be as good as That's true. Also because modern languages are more flexible than the ones in the 80s - probably, I wasn't around back then, but I remember from learning C that there was "old style" where all variables had to be declared at the beginning of the function, and that "new style" (second half of 90s?) was to declare them at the point of use. My guess would be that this and other similar limitations were the reason for writing CWEB. The order and flow of the presentation is very important to Knuth, so he wrote a tool which allowed him the freedom of putting text and code in the way he wanted. Modern languages are in general flexible enough to make this a non-issue, as the presentation can be safely included in the source, and you have much freedom in structuring (ordering) the code, too. CoffeeScript is one example of "literate programming in the modern world". That being said, I think you greatly underestimate how much care is needed to write code like this. I'd guess that not many professional programmers could do this - it's that hard. But yeah, beautiful when executed well.