4 ms·
In this case he actually doesn't know his subject, because the subject here is comprehensibility of code, which is a function of human psychology and cognitive
by Confusion 11y ago
In this case he actually doesn't know his subject, because the subject here is comprehensibility of code, which is a function of human psychology and cognitive capabilities. What works for Tony and people like him does not work for most other people.
Abstract type signatures induce eye glazing in most programmers. It induces my eyes to glaze over and I've actually passed a course in category theory. It's not like I don't understand type signatures: I just takes more time than reading a decent descriptive name and trusting my coworkers. If a function square doesn't actually square, but cubes, I have a coworker to corner.
- the_af 11y agoI do not agree 100% with Tony, it was just an interesting counterpoint to the blindly asserted notion that "naming identifiers help". Make no mistake, he does knows his stuff; he's just a bit extreme about it. By the way, I wouldn't use an argument "by laziness" to argue in favor of naming things. "Type signatures induce eye glazing in most programmers", and "it takes more time"? Well, most programmers also write most of the bugs :) Not sure what this says about the relative merits of naming vs types/structure... In any case, this was a tangent. Since FP doesn't preclude naming things if you wish, I'm not sure what the OP was all about.