Let me quote the very first words of the article: > Write Dumb Code > The best way you can contribute to an open source project is to remove lines of code fro

Let me quote the very first words of the article: > Write Dumb Code > The best way you can contribute to an open source project is to remove lines of code from it What am I missing here? How is writing short code dumb? How could the author argue that using "smart" techniques, makes the code longer? This is not smart, this is actually dumb. Maybe the author should put the "Dumb" in quotes, as a critique of techniques that are praised as smart but actually are worse than the common "dumb" techniques. The linked-lists might be a good example of over-engineered solutions that usually are worse than a simple vector (array). But no, the author clearly means code readability. WHY ON EARTH would you even consider using some kind of advanced syntax or pattern if it was longer? Typically such are used to shorten code, like various meta-programming techniques (macros, reflections, metaclasses, you name it) or patterns like iterators, abstractions, match expressions etc. Why would the HN crowd dig up a low quality article like this? Oh, one more thing, code could be longer but smarter because it's performing better. But I don't think that's what the author meant, if he did, I imagine a lot of us would disagree.