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.

Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to