4 ms·

One thing I noticed anecdotally is that coding aesthetics and style matters much more for stupider people and smarter people actually have a correlation with wr

One thing I noticed anecdotally is that coding aesthetics and style matters much more for stupider people and smarter people actually have a correlation with writing sloppy code. I think the reason comes from something similar to the article. Smarter people don't "need" perfectly pristine aesthetic code because they have the brain power to easily read messier code. It's not universal. Some smart people are obsessed with neatness but because neatness just isn't required you see this correlation with sloppier code and smarter people. I have found that it is nearly universal that stupider people need to obsess over neat code because they literally have to have it or things get too hard for them. Also yes, it's not universal but I have also noticed less smart programmers tend to like golang. There is definitely a correlation. I know this can come off as a bit offensive for people who like golang or really obsess over neat code. I just want to say my statements are general, anecdotal and I have definitely seen examples to the contrary so I may not be referring to you personally! I'm referring to a general tendency I see.

conor- 3y ago
I'd probably fall more in the spectrum of dumb programmer vs smart one, but I like clean code/consistently enforced patterns because it reduces the amount of mental overhead required to get code state into your brain. I'd rather focus on actually solving the problem at hand vs wrangling with messy, overly clever code. That's one of the reason I like Go so much. The language is simple and easy to read with common, idiomatic patterns to the point it just gets out of your way and you can actually focus on what you're trying to do instead of spinning your wheels with a million clever ways to write the same code.
alpaca128 3y ago
For me it's a bit of both: experimental code or one-off scripts can be a total mess while at the same time I care a lot about readability in other projects. For one it's still helpful when I'm tired, but also while I may be able to read my own sloppy code a few days after writing it that won't be true forever. Another reason is that I have trouble with very abstract code/concepts, the more I can reason about what's actually happening with data and memory the easier and quicker I understand the code. That's why I'm terrible with Haskell etc, it requires a kind of thinking that feels like a mental foreign language.
- ninetyninenine 3y ago
  Makes sense.
danmur 3y ago
Its easier for new team members to understand consistently formatted code. Just one less thing to get in the way. Some people are too stupid to use an autoformatter though :P.
- ninetyninenine 3y ago
  Nobody is too stupid to use an auto formatter. I'm not even talking about that. CI can automate on commit or enforce it. I mean literally it's just one command. I'm referring to style and neatness beyond the linter.
  - danmur 3y ago
    I have no idea what you're talking about I'm sorry. If you're talking about style and neatness in the same sense as style and neatness in literature it's just as important in code. If not then style and neatness is just an aspect of good grammar and simple hygiene, should be mostly done on autopilot. Maybe you have some other experience of pointless pedantry but I don't know what it is.
    - ninetyninenine 3y ago
      >I have no idea what you're talking about I'm sorry. It's ok no need to apologize here. You've done nothing wrong. Style and neatness extends beyond linters. For example naming. I can choose bad names. The linter won't catch it. I can choose inconsistent names and the linter won't catch it. Also style can refer to programming style. One programmer may prefer recursion the other for loops. Another programmer may prefer dependency injection while a golang programmer is more against that style. None of these things are pedantic imo. I would also kindly request that you don't say stuff like this: "Maybe you have some other experience of pointless pedantry but I don't know what it is.". It comes off as bit rude to me. Though I assume that was not your intention it did come off that way and I would just like this conversation to continue amicably.
saint_fiasco 3y ago
There are smart programmers and dumb programmers, clean programmers and messy programmers. From your perspective, it looks like there is an inverse correlation but that is only because of Berkson's paradox. The programmers who are both smart and clean don't hang out with you. They have more interesting projects to work on, or higher-paid jobs at other companies/industries. At the same time, you don't hang out with programmers who are both stupid and messy. They don't get hired at the same companies you work for, they don't have the skills needed to work on the same projects you work on, their articles don't get to the front page of Hacker News and so on.
- ninetyninenine 3y ago
  >The programmers who are both smart and clean don't hang out with you. Not true. I've literally stated in my post I've seen them. Your statement is illogically contradictory to my statement. >From your perspective, it looks like there is an inverse correlation but that is only because of Berkson's paradox. Possible. But I'm not sure how you can state this as fact without knowing where I've worked or having data to back it up. Everyone is going off subjective opinions here and no one can be sure who is definitively right or wrong. I feel you're the one who's biased here. Unless you have something more then anecdotal data to back that statement up I feel it's just your own two cents against mine. Which is fine, anecdotally both are valid. >They don't get hired at the same companies you work for, they don't have the skills needed to work on the same projects you work on, their articles don't get to the front page of Hacker News and so on. Right. So what companies have I worked for? You can make this statement because you know? Anecdotal evidence or not, you literally have no basis here.
  - saint_fiasco 3y ago
    I didn't intend to make a statistically rigorous statement or anything, I just thought your anecdote was a funny application of Berkson's paradox. The fun part is that I don't need to know how smart or clean you are, or how cool the companies you work for are. As long as you subjectively perceive people to be cleaner/messier than you, or smarter/dumber than you, Berkson's paradox will still hold no matter what your objective, absolute levels of those traits are. For example, it's perfectly possible that the programmers you consider to be dumb but clean or smart but messy are still both smarter and cleaner than me. Berkson's paradox applies to me too, after all, and we don't hang out together.
greatpostman 3y ago
I think some people enjoy the aesthetics of good code, much like math. That’s a smart person thing

conor- 3y ago

I'd probably fall more in the spectrum of dumb programmer vs smart one, but I like clean code/consistently enforced patterns because it reduces the amount of mental overhead required to get code state into your brain. I'd rather focus on actually solving the problem at hand vs wrangling with messy, overly clever code. That's one of the reason I like Go so much. The language is simple and easy to read with common, idiomatic patterns to the point it just gets out of your way and you can actually focus on what you're trying to do instead of spinning your wheels with a million clever ways to write the same code.

alpaca128 3y ago

For me it's a bit of both: experimental code or one-off scripts can be a total mess while at the same time I care a lot about readability in other projects. For one it's still helpful when I'm tired, but also while I may be able to read my own sloppy code a few days after writing it that won't be true forever. Another reason is that I have trouble with very abstract code/concepts, the more I can reason about what's actually happening with data and memory the easier and quicker I understand the code. That's why I'm terrible with Haskell etc, it requires a kind of thinking that feels like a mental foreign language.

ninetyninenine 3y ago
Makes sense.

danmur 3y ago

Its easier for new team members to understand consistently formatted code. Just one less thing to get in the way. Some people are too stupid to use an autoformatter though :P.

ninetyninenine 3y ago
Nobody is too stupid to use an auto formatter. I'm not even talking about that. CI can automate on commit or enforce it. I mean literally it's just one command. I'm referring to style and neatness beyond the linter.
- danmur 3y ago
  I have no idea what you're talking about I'm sorry. If you're talking about style and neatness in the same sense as style and neatness in literature it's just as important in code. If not then style and neatness is just an aspect of good grammar and simple hygiene, should be mostly done on autopilot. Maybe you have some other experience of pointless pedantry but I don't know what it is.
  - ninetyninenine 3y ago
    >I have no idea what you're talking about I'm sorry. It's ok no need to apologize here. You've done nothing wrong. Style and neatness extends beyond linters. For example naming. I can choose bad names. The linter won't catch it. I can choose inconsistent names and the linter won't catch it. Also style can refer to programming style. One programmer may prefer recursion the other for loops. Another programmer may prefer dependency injection while a golang programmer is more against that style. None of these things are pedantic imo. I would also kindly request that you don't say stuff like this: "Maybe you have some other experience of pointless pedantry but I don't know what it is.". It comes off as bit rude to me. Though I assume that was not your intention it did come off that way and I would just like this conversation to continue amicably.

saint_fiasco 3y ago

There are smart programmers and dumb programmers, clean programmers and messy programmers. From your perspective, it looks like there is an inverse correlation but that is only because of Berkson's paradox. The programmers who are both smart and clean don't hang out with you. They have more interesting projects to work on, or higher-paid jobs at other companies/industries. At the same time, you don't hang out with programmers who are both stupid and messy. They don't get hired at the same companies you work for, they don't have the skills needed to work on the same projects you work on, their articles don't get to the front page of Hacker News and so on.

ninetyninenine 3y ago
>The programmers who are both smart and clean don't hang out with you. Not true. I've literally stated in my post I've seen them. Your statement is illogically contradictory to my statement. >From your perspective, it looks like there is an inverse correlation but that is only because of Berkson's paradox. Possible. But I'm not sure how you can state this as fact without knowing where I've worked or having data to back it up. Everyone is going off subjective opinions here and no one can be sure who is definitively right or wrong. I feel you're the one who's biased here. Unless you have something more then anecdotal data to back that statement up I feel it's just your own two cents against mine. Which is fine, anecdotally both are valid. >They don't get hired at the same companies you work for, they don't have the skills needed to work on the same projects you work on, their articles don't get to the front page of Hacker News and so on. Right. So what companies have I worked for? You can make this statement because you know? Anecdotal evidence or not, you literally have no basis here.
- saint_fiasco 3y ago
  I didn't intend to make a statistically rigorous statement or anything, I just thought your anecdote was a funny application of Berkson's paradox. The fun part is that I don't need to know how smart or clean you are, or how cool the companies you work for are. As long as you subjectively perceive people to be cleaner/messier than you, or smarter/dumber than you, Berkson's paradox will still hold no matter what your objective, absolute levels of those traits are. For example, it's perfectly possible that the programmers you consider to be dumb but clean or smart but messy are still both smarter and cleaner than me. Berkson's paradox applies to me too, after all, and we don't hang out together.

greatpostman 3y ago

I think some people enjoy the aesthetics of good code, much like math. That’s a smart person thing