I think that the idea that code should be able to communicate its intent clearly and simply is a good goal. I also think that there are times when an explanation in a judicious comment as to why it's being done this way, or what is to be accomplished, can be very helpful.
On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 1:56:38 PM UTC-4 Edward K. Ream wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 10:17 AM Thomas Passin <tbp1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This paragraph caught my eye: >> >> "One of the early experiences that led me to focus on communication was >> discovering Knuth's Literate Programming: a progam should read like a book. >> It should have plot, rhythm, and delightful little turns of phrase. When >> Ward Cunningham and I first read about literate programs, we decided to try >> it. We sat down with one of the cleanest pieces of code in the Smalltalk >> image, the ScrollController, and tried to make it into a story. Hours later >> we had completely rewritten the code on our way to a reasonable paper. >> Every time a bit of logic was a little hard to explain, it was easier to >> rewrite the code than explain why the code was hard to understand. The >> demands of communication changed our perspective on coding." >> > > Thanks for this. As you know, I have a different opinion. Rather than a > novel, programs are more like a reference book. Narrative is great for a > Theory of Operation. For everything else, not so much. > > Edward > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/1777f039-f0de-44d3-83d5-26c4130d68c5n%40googlegroups.com.
