4 ms·
I know that this is mostly for fun, and it looks cool. But on a serious note, as someone who's dabbled in both J, stack languages (Forth and Factor), as well as
by paldepind2 3y ago
I know that this is mostly for fun, and it looks cool. But on a serious note, as someone who's dabbled in both J, stack languages (Forth and Factor), as well as tacit programming in Haskell, I'll say that naming is an awesome way of making programs more readable.
Trying hard to avoid names (by, say, eta reduction in Haskell) is a fun excercise that rarely leads to more understandable programs.
- pyrale 3y agoAgreed, and when it comes to Haskell, hlint pushing eta reduction like it's candy doesn't help.
- otikik 3y agoI think it is not just "a way" of making programs readable, but that it is the main readability factor. Good names make a program readable, bad names ones do the opposite. Almost all time spent improving names is worth it. The only exception might be one-off scripts.
- alimw 3y ago> The only exception might be one-off scripts. Agreed, but if you're writing in J, Forth or Factor then it's hardly likely to make it into production anyway.
- themoonisachees 3y agoCounterpoint: all of my one-off scripts (well, not all) have not actually been one-off.
- thedanbob 3y agoI did not fully appreciate this until I had to edit a script written by a non-English speaker. It was absolutely incomprehensible until I ran all the variable names through Google translate. After that, piece of cake.
- gregfjohnson 3y agoCompletely agree. Reading another engineer's code recently, which had egregiously bad names, the following thought occurred to me: Writing software is like writing poetry. Finding the words that perfectly capture and express the essence of your thinking and the underlying model or theory behind your code is so important. In software as in poetry, one is always on the lookout for that "mot juste".