5 ms·
I think it's fair to blame the code in this case. It's not written at all for readability (by anyone other than the author while he was writing it). Of course h
by ejk314 12y ago
I think it's fair to blame the code in this case. It's not written at all for readability (by anyone other than the author while he was writing it). Of course he knew what those 1 or 2 letter variable names meant when he came up with them, so it's a lot easier to load into memory. But I doubt Whitney could easily coming back to this code after any length of time.
- theoh 12y agoHe is famous or notorious for rewriting from scratch every few years. So, your impression sounds plausible.
- avmich 12y agoYou think Arthur doesn't look to his code back for those few years between rewritings?
- ksherlock 12y agoBC: Do you ever look at your own code and think, "What the hell was I doing here?" AW: No, I guess I don't. Of course, maybe he was answering the first 8 words. http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1531242 http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1531242
- theoh 12y agoLogically, he could be answering the entire question truthfully, except that he doesn't look at old code at all. He'a clearly somebody very focused on the current "working set", with his rewrites and one-page files. As opposed to the kind of programmer who curates a sprawling historic code base.
- theoh 12y agoWell, he does have to maintain it (apparently it needs a lot of bugfixes, according to discussion on Reddit) but, unlike the notorious perfection and immutability of the syntax of APL, he does have a habit of throwing old code away.