3 ms·

> Norvig's code is beautiful and very good Lisp. But it's so dense that it requires more lines of explanatory comments than actual functionality. The code's fun

by grardb 6y ago

> Norvig's code is beautiful and very good Lisp. But it's so dense that it requires more lines of explanatory comments than actual functionality. The code's functionality isn't self-evident. And sure, you can write Java code that has the same flaws, but I find it's easier to write readable Java code than it is to write readable Lisp. I mostly agree with this in general, but in my opinion, this kind of stuff gets exacerbated with programmers like Peter Norvig. I was a really early MOOC student, and I was taking Udacity's first programming courses. I was a senior in college and already had plenty of coursework and multiple jobs/internships under my belt when I took their "Introduction to Programming" course. It was extremely easy for me. The next programming course in their curriculum was "Design of Computer Programs," which is a course by Peter Norvig. When it was released, it had the difficulty set at "Beginner." While people were still going through the first iteration of the course, it got changed to "Advanced." The problem, in my opinion, was the code. Even though it was Python, it was always extremely dense and required an insane amount of thought in order to comprehend what was going on. His variable and function names were also often very short and not descriptive enough. I was able to get through the course, but it was a lot harder than I'd like to admit. As a mildly more seasoned programmer (I'm turning 30 soon), I would not think highly of a coworker's abilities if they wrote code like this. You definitely need to be smart to write the code the way Norvig does, but it takes a certain skill to write code that other people can understand, and I don't think he has that skill, regardless of the programming language. All that is to say is that it's probably not just Lisp's fault, at least in this case.

kragen 6y ago
> You definitely need to be smart to write the code the way Norvig does, but it takes a certain skill to write code that other people can understand Just as functionality is relative to a purpose, readability is relative to an audience; Edmund Spenser is difficult for most of us to read today, and Dan Brown is incomprehensible if you speak only Chinese. The code of Norvig's that I've read (if we include the comments) is very readable to me, but I'm not a senior in college. (Without the comments I think I would have a terrible time.) If I'm writing code with people like Norvig as an audience, I'll write it differently than if my audience consists of relative novices.
- peterashford 5y ago
  which means if you're working with other people in a business, a whole class of programmers won't be able to work well with your code. I think this makes the OP's point for them
  - kragen 5y ago
    Yes, that's always the case. Whenever you're writing, your writing is more accessible to some audiences than to others, according to how familiar the vocabulary and conceptual framework you're using are to them. So it's important to know what audience you're writing for so you can tailor your style to be maximally accessible to them. It's tempting to think that you can organize kinds of writing on a one-dimensional continuum of levels from "more recondite" to "less recondite", with people being able to read anything at or (more easily) below their level, but it's totally false. Yesterday I went to check out some power usage statistics in the datasheet for a microcontroller I wanted to use for a project. To my dismay, it said, and I quote, "电流消耗是多种参数和因素的综合指标,这些参数和因素包括工作电压、环境温度、I/O引脚的负载、产品的软件配置、工作频率、I/O 脚的翻转速率、程序在存储器中的位置以及执行的代码等。" I mean, that's surely understandable to many more people than what I'm writing here. But I'm not one of them. (Fortunately, in this case the data tables mostly answered my questions.)

by grardb 6y ago

kragen 6y ago

> You definitely need to be smart to write the code the way Norvig does, but it takes a certain skill to write code that other people can understand Just as functionality is relative to a purpose, readability is relative to an audience; Edmund Spenser is difficult for most of us to read today, and Dan Brown is incomprehensible if you speak only Chinese. The code of Norvig's that I've read (if we include the comments) is very readable to me, but I'm not a senior in college. (Without the comments I think I would have a terrible time.) If I'm writing code with people like Norvig as an audience, I'll write it differently than if my audience consists of relative novices.

peterashford 5y ago
which means if you're working with other people in a business, a whole class of programmers won't be able to work well with your code. I think this makes the OP's point for them
- kragen 5y ago
  Yes, that's always the case. Whenever you're writing, your writing is more accessible to some audiences than to others, according to how familiar the vocabulary and conceptual framework you're using are to them. So it's important to know what audience you're writing for so you can tailor your style to be maximally accessible to them. It's tempting to think that you can organize kinds of writing on a one-dimensional continuum of levels from "more recondite" to "less recondite", with people being able to read anything at or (more easily) below their level, but it's totally false. Yesterday I went to check out some power usage statistics in the datasheet for a microcontroller I wanted to use for a project. To my dismay, it said, and I quote, "电流消耗是多种参数和因素的综合指标,这些参数和因素包括工作电压、环境温度、I/O引脚的负载、产品的软件配置、工作频率、I/O 脚的翻转速率、程序在存储器中的位置以及执行的代码等。" I mean, that's surely understandable to many more people than what I'm writing here. But I'm not one of them. (Fortunately, in this case the data tables mostly answered my questions.)