Andreas Jung wrote at 2007-8-24 21:01 +0200: > ... >ACK on everything of that. But reading code comes before understanding code. >And the visual impression of code has a strong impact on how we read code >and on how we understand code.
True, but do you really read code to satisfy an esthetical need? When I read code, I always need an understanding of this code -- usually because the code does not what I suppose it should do. I never read code just for pleasure. Reading effort is usually much smaller than the understanding effort. While many people in the Python community seem to prefer loose code, I can better read and understand dense code. I can also read and understand loose code and my total effort is not dominated by the reading part. Thus, I could e.g. analyse a postgres (locking) problem by understanding its source although the code was horribly loose because the other (much more essential) aspects have been excellent: like conceptial documentation, well chosen names, well documented source... While I do not tell others whether they should write loose or dense code, I refuse to follow their preferences in *my* code. You can specify rules for your repositories -- and I will obey them. If the rules go however significantly against my preferences, then this implies fewer contributions from my side. -- Dieter _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3firstname.lastname@example.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com