|
Readability is actually really important.
The reason you can't find studies on it is that it varies by language, norms, code history, etc.
I mean, sure, there are *some things* that are simply unreadable no matter what, but most often readability is highly subjective and team-based.
Making hard and fast rules about it is very impractical and verging - in my opinion - on impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
DeerBear wrote: The reason you can't find studies on it is that it varies by language, norms, code history, etc.
Nope.
The reason you can't find any studies on it is because one needs to first be able to measure something to do a study.
You can't declare that something is 'better' if you cannot define how to measure that it is so.
Would you sign a contract that said your code must be 'better' or you don't get paid unless the contract specifically stated how that would be measured?
|
|
|
|
|
Most readability responses are along the lines of:
- "They don't RTFM, so why write a good one",
- "Comments in code is bad",
- "I'm not good at (variable) naming".
Nothing to read. Unplanned code obsolescence!
Thank goodness(?) for Emoji's.
|
|
|
|
|
PhilipOakley wrote: Thank goodness(?) for Emoji's
Especially this one: ๐ฉ
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I have one person in my team who will insist on doing things their way, because of clean code and readability.
It's such a moot point, IMHO.
Practically speaking, you should stick to the following:
Structurally, you should keep the cyclometric complexity low --> you'll have cheaper A/B testing in the future, which is a good fallback strategy for unforeseen issues of all sizes.
Syntax wise, just copy whatever style is prevalent in the code-base already, and reduce inconsistencies --> cheaper refactoring in the future.
Quality wise, you should always aim for less lines of code, without resorting to ANY advanced language techniques --> less reading to understand the code, less esoteric bugs.
Just do those three things to drive costs down and quality up.
Everything else is pointless. The compiler doesn't care about the look and feel of the code and the user definitely doesn't care.
We should take a hint and stop caring so much too.
|
|
|
|
|
Programmers who can't be bothered to use linting tools are rarely concerned with cyclometric complexity, or maintenance cost, or refactoring. Also, it seems the broken window theory applies to software: if it's already crap software, most people won't bother with writing good code, resorting instead to the metric of lowest cost to write (even if it means the user or company pays the price many times over).
|
|
|
|
|
Andre_Prellwitz wrote: bothered to use linting tools are
Sigh...
Static checkers are useless. They were useless 40 years ago when I first saw them and just as useless now.
I have seen a static checked which tagged switch statements as being too complex. The 'solution' which some programmer implemented to fix that and which was reviewed and passed involved creating 40 objects every single time. 40 objects that could not even be created successfully every time. That code ended up in production. So it went from a very valid and correct idiom to one that failed.
If the teams consists of NOTHING but junior developers then maybe they might provide a benefit. But if there is even one mid level developer and that person actually takes code review seriously then that is going to be far more effective.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed, static code analysis is designed to provide false positives over false negatives. What I actually meant was the simple linters that fix code style differences; if you cannot even agree on standards (rules such as "interface names should start with the letter 'I'", or "avoid Hungarian notation") then what are the odds you can agree on what's considered "clean"?
|
|
|
|
|
They missed the point alright.
You should also wash your computer with soap at least weekly.
Especially your hard disk because that's where your code is stored.
In production it's important to also wash your RAM because that's where lots of it runs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've never read it, but that's a really good summary, though there are a few terms that need explaining.
|
|
|
|
|
People following the form because they don't bother understanding the content ain't news, sadly.
|
|
|
|
|
It's called Cargo Cult [whatever]. 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. What happened to the man? Where did he go wrong? 
His entire life now is a punch line to a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: His entire life now is a punch line to a joke.
TBH, I felt that way about his movies. Except for Machete. That was his best work, IMO. He was cast perfectly for it. He makes a better villain than hero, I think.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
That's because he doesn't need to act to be a convincing villain.
|
|
|
|
|
Do these people need that money that bad?
When I saw this I was thinking of Tom Sellout (Selleck) that asswad that promotes reverse mortgages.
The less you need, the more you have.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut...occasionally.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
My TV guide always referred to him as "that exchangeable character", they had it right!
|
|
|
|
|
Well, given that I avoid anything the guy's ever been involved with, hiring him seems to be a pretty effective warning.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: hiring him seems to be a pretty effective warning.
And still there were like 11 Million involved...
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Well...people still watch his movies, for some unphatomable reason...
|
|
|
|
|
Seems there's just a lot people with a lot of money that they can just toss to the wind. So, no tears for anyone.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
โ Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
with the promise of up to 200% gains within 60 to 90 days And this is not too good to be true. Crikey there are some idjits in this world and they seem to have money.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
