Tim Peters wrote:
def objective_readability_score(text):
"Return the readability of `text`, a float in 0.0 .. 1.0"
return 2.0 * text.count(":=") / len(text)
A useful-looking piece of code, but it could be more readable.
It only gives itself a readability score of 0.0136986301369863.
--
On Wed, 02 May 2018 05:08:41 +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> The difference was that when Windows users used the mouse, even though
> they were *objectively* faster to complete the task compared to using
> the arrow keys, subjectively they swore that they were slower, and
> were *very confident* a
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 4:03 AM, Matt Arcidy wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Mikhail V wrote:
>
>> to be pedantic - ReallyLongDescriptiveIdentifierNames
>> has also an issue with "I" which might confuse because it
>> looks same as little L. Just to illustrate that choice of
>> comparison
Matt, you took the words right out of my mouth! The fonts that are being
used will have a big difference in readability, as will font size,
foreground and background coloring, etc. It would be interesting to see if
anyone has done a serious study of this type though, especially if they
studied it
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Mikhail V wrote:
> to be pedantic - ReallyLongDescriptiveIdentifierNames
> has also an issue with "I" which might confuse because it
> looks same as little L. Just to illustrate that choice of
> comparison samples is very sensitive thing.
> In such a way an experie
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 6:04 PM, Jacco van Dorp wrote:
> 2018-05-01 14:54 GMT+02:00 Greg Ewing :
>> Rhodri James wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd be interested to know if there is a readability difference between
>>> really_long_descriptive_identifier_name and
>>> ReallyLongDescriptiveIdentifierNames.
>>
>>
>> A
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 3:42 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:28:17AM -0700, Matt Arcidy wrote:
>
> - people are not good judges of readability;
People are the only judges of readability.
Just need the right people.
___
Python-idea
On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 03:02:27PM +, Dan Sommers wrote:
> >> I happen to be an excellent judge of whether a given block of code is
> >> readable to me.
>
> > In the same way that 93% of people say that they are an above-average
> > driver, I'm sure that most people think that they are an exc
Objectively quantifying is easy. For example,
def objective_readability_score(text):
"Return the readability of `text`, a float in 0.0 .. 1.0"
return 2.0 * text.count(":=") / len(text)
Then
>>> objective_readability_score("if value:")
0.0
>>> objective_readability_score("if value := f()
On Tue, May 1, 2018, 02:55 Matt Arcidy wrote:
>
> I am not inferring causality when creating a measure.
No, but when you assume that you can use that measure to *make* code more
readable, then you're assuming causality.
Measuring the
> temperature of a steak doesn't infer why people like it me
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Jacco van Dorp wrote:
> 2018-05-01 14:54 GMT+02:00 Greg Ewing :
> > Rhodri James wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd be interested to know if there is a readability difference between
> >> really_long_descriptive_identifier_name and
> >> ReallyLongDescriptiveIdentifierNames.
> >
2018-05-01 14:54 GMT+02:00 Greg Ewing :
> Rhodri James wrote:
>>
>> I'd be interested to know if there is a readability difference between
>> really_long_descriptive_identifier_name and
>> ReallyLongDescriptiveIdentifierNames.
>
>
> As one data point on that, jerking my eyes quickly across
> that l
On Tue, 01 May 2018 22:37:11 +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 04:50:05AM +, Dan Sommers wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 May 2018 10:42:53 +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> > - people are not good judges of readability;
>> I happen to be an excellent judge of whether a given blo
Rhodri James wrote:
I'd be interested to know if there is a readability difference between
really_long_descriptive_identifier_name and
ReallyLongDescriptiveIdentifierNames.
As one data point on that, jerking my eyes quickly across
that line I found it much easier to pick out the component
word
On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 04:50:05AM +, Dan Sommers wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2018 10:42:53 +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> > - people are not good judges of readability;
>
> WTF? By definition, people are the *only* judge of readability.¹
We're discussing an actual study that attempted, with
On 01/05/18 01:42, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
That's a really nice study, and thank you for posting it.
Seconded!
There are some
interested observations here, e.g.:
- line length is negatively correlated with readability;
(a point against those who insist that 79 character line
limits are
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:29 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:46 PM, Matt Arcidy wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> (If we know that, let's say, really_long_descriptive_identifier_names
>>> hurt readability, how does that help us judge whet
Yes, it seems that this study has many limitations which don't make its
results very interesting for our community. I think the original point
was that readability *can* be studied rationnally and scientifically,
though.
Regards
Antoine.
On Tue, 1 May 2018 09:00:44 +0200
Jacco van Dorp
wrote
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:46 PM, Matt Arcidy wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> (If we know that, let's say, really_long_descriptive_identifier_names
>> hurt readability, how does that help us judge whether adding a new kind
>> of expression will hurt or help read
I must say my gut agrees that
really_long_identifier_names_with_a_full_description don't look
readable to me. Perhaps it's my exposure to (py)Qt, but I really like
my classes like ThisName and my methods like thisOne. I also tend to
keep them to three words max (real code from yesterday:
getActiveO
On Tue, 01 May 2018 10:42:53 +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> - people are not good judges of readability;
WTF? By definition, people are the *only* judge of readability.¹
I happen to be an excellent judge of whether a given block of code is
readable to me.
OTOH, if you mean is that I'm a bad j
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:28:17AM -0700, Matt Arcidy wrote:
>
>> A study has been done regarding readability in code which may serve as
>> insight into this issue. Please see page 8, fig 9 for a nice chart of
>> the results, note the negat
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> The conclusion here is that if you want readable source code, you should
> remove the source code. *wink*
That's more true than your winky implies. Which is more readable: a
Python function, or the disassembly of its corresponding byte-cod
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:28:17AM -0700, Matt Arcidy wrote:
> A study has been done regarding readability in code which may serve as
> insight into this issue. Please see page 8, fig 9 for a nice chart of
> the results, note the negative/positive coloring of the correlations,
> grey/black respect
The number and type of arguments about readability as a justification,
or an opinion, or an opinion about an opinion seems counter-productive
to reaching conclusions efficiently. I think they are very important
either way, but the justifications used are not rich enough in
information to be very u
25 matches
Mail list logo
