2 ms·
Love it too. Reminds me of the terseness of Haskell, which I also enjoy. Whenever I need that "high-level view" you mentioned, I enjoy seeing the whole module
by whstl 4y ago
Love it too. Reminds me of the terseness of Haskell, which I also enjoy.
Whenever I need that "high-level view" you mentioned, I enjoy seeing the whole module without having to scroll/search. In codebases where I gotta jump around too much, I feel disoriented and slowed-down. Like for example on Rails classes where single-use variables are replaced by single-use private methods, that are often far away from it's original usage point. I understand the rationale for doing it but it still tax me mentally when trying to get a holistic understanding of the code.
But then again, some people get used to sparse code and for then I assume such terseness can be overwhelming. Oh well. I just wish they could see my point of view too.
- TeMPOraL 4y agoI really consider this a false dichotomy. It's a limitation of tooling (and ultimately of our plaintext-based mode of programming, in which we always edit the single, canonical form of the source code). My preferred form really depends on why I'm looking at particular piece of code at a particular moment. I like my code sparse and modular if it eliminates details I don't care about. I love my code dense, tight and inlined, if it lets me fit all details I need on a single screen, or otherwise minimize the amount of scrolling and jumping between files. Depending on my particular goal, the same code can be perfectly readable, or a horrible mess. In practice, I find most of the code I deal with too sparse, but that's again the function of the work I typically do.