| I still see symmetry: That the computer cannot receive joy from code does not mean that I can't; That the computer doesn't experience joy from Macbeth doesn't mean that I don't. Reading joyful code is a treat. I pity who has not read some code that has brought them joy. And yet, what brings me joy[1], [2] is what the peanut gallery may call unreadable. What then? [1]: www.nsl.com/papers/origins.htm [2]: cr.yp.to/qmail.html Surely something else must be going on. Kernighan and Plauger, while otherwise dated, has one of the best rules for programmers: Say what you mean, simply and directly. Assume the best of the writer of the code you are reading; assume this was them saying what they meant, as simply and directly as they could. Was it clear in their mind? Or does it feel like they were muddling through the problem? If as I am decoding this foreign thing of other people's code, I find my mind repeatedly would put it simpler, cleaner, and clearer, I can complain about the tedium, and mindless repetition in the code, but I'm still not complaining about it's readability. |