4 ms·

Ask HN: Settle this simple elegant vs. readable disagreement

2 points by PlzSnow 12y ago

Consider these 2 statements, which identically detect an iPod or iPhone: if (/ip(hone|od)/i.test(navigator.userAgent)) if (/iphone|ipod/i.test(navigator.userAgent)) Which would you use? I argue for the second, as it is simple, clear, easy for maintainers to quickly grok. I think simplicity is more important. My colleague argues for the purity and elegance of the first solution. He thinks purity/elegance is most important. Anyone have an opinion on this?

monroepe 12y ago
I like the second a lot more. It's just easier to read without knowing anything else.
mrcold 12y ago
Art is subjective. Structure is forever. The first statement is indeed nice and elegant. A small work of art from a coding perspective. However, maintaining in the future will be a pain in the ass. Because art is the eye of the beholder. And future beholders won't appreciate it as much. On the other hand, the second statement is structured. You know exactly with what you're dealing with. It's ugly. But it's a building block. Anybody can understand it and use it immediately. So tell your colleague to make a screenshot of the first one and frame it on his wall. Then use the second statement in production. Code must always be generic. Personalization only leads to technical debt.
auganov 12y ago
If we are to be very picky I'd say if (/ip(od|hone)/i.test(navigator.userAgent)) is easier to figure out than if (/ip(hone|od)/i.test(navigator.userAgent)) for some reason.
brudgers 12y ago
I recommend encouraging your colleague to pursue a career as a Lisp hacker. Their inclination toward parentheses makes them look like a natural. On the other hand, it may be wise to caution them against a career in the arts: An aesthetic judgement that extra parentheses express purity is of dubious quality.
pjungwir 12y ago
In my opinion you should usually not code for DRY when the repetition is "accidental," only when it expresses a principle from your domain (your "business logic"). Sharing "ip" between "iphone" and "ipod" seems like a perfect example of accidentally DRY. I think your colleague is trying too hard. Code should be boring!

2 points by PlzSnow 12y ago

monroepe 12y ago

I like the second a lot more. It's just easier to read without knowing anything else.

mrcold 12y ago

Art is subjective. Structure is forever. The first statement is indeed nice and elegant. A small work of art from a coding perspective. However, maintaining in the future will be a pain in the ass. Because art is the eye of the beholder. And future beholders won't appreciate it as much. On the other hand, the second statement is structured. You know exactly with what you're dealing with. It's ugly. But it's a building block. Anybody can understand it and use it immediately. So tell your colleague to make a screenshot of the first one and frame it on his wall. Then use the second statement in production. Code must always be generic. Personalization only leads to technical debt.

auganov 12y ago

If we are to be very picky I'd say if (/ip(od|hone)/i.test(navigator.userAgent)) is easier to figure out than if (/ip(hone|od)/i.test(navigator.userAgent)) for some reason.

brudgers 12y ago

I recommend encouraging your colleague to pursue a career as a Lisp hacker. Their inclination toward parentheses makes them look like a natural. On the other hand, it may be wise to caution them against a career in the arts: An aesthetic judgement that extra parentheses express purity is of dubious quality.

pjungwir 12y ago

In my opinion you should usually not code for DRY when the repetition is "accidental," only when it expresses a principle from your domain (your "business logic"). Sharing "ip" between "iphone" and "ipod" seems like a perfect example of accidentally DRY. I think your colleague is trying too hard. Code should be boring!