3 ms·
Very good point. Often developers talk in cargo-cult terminology like "beautiful" or "nice" or "elegant" code, but there is no definition of what that even mean
by 0xbadcafebee 5y ago
Very good point. Often developers talk in cargo-cult terminology like "beautiful" or "nice" or "elegant" code, but there is no definition of what that even means or whether it empirically leads to better (or worse) outcomes. We know people like it more, but that doesn't mean we should be doing it. A true science would provide hypothesis, experiment, repeated evidence, rather than anecdotes.
(from the downvotes it seems like some people don't want software to be a science)
- vanviegen 5y agoEasy: simpler is better. What is considered simple wildly varies based on ones experiences though.
- theamk 5y agoWhile scientific approach would be nice, it is hard to do, and even harder to do correctly in the way applicable to the specific situation. And in the absence of the research, all we have is intuition and anecdotes. And they work both ways -- there are anecdotes that making code beautiful leads to better outcomes, and there are anecdotes that having ugly code leads to better outcomes. This means you cannot use lack of scientific research to give weight to your personal opinions. After all, that argument works in either direction ("There is no evidence that leaving duplicate code in the tree leaves to worse outcomes... A true science would provide...")