Thread replies: 17
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: ketchupisavegetable.jpg (19KB, 270x400px) Image search:
[Google]
19KB, 270x400px
>muh "readability" bullshit
If we taught human languages the way most programming languages are being taught today, everyone would have the equivalent vocabulary of a 10-year-old and never be able to read or write sentences containing more than one verb, one adjective, one adverb, and one noun. "Unsafe" words like "science", "thinking", and "brain" would be banned from common use and restricted only to the "experts" (i.e. governments and the other fat pigs at the top), and anyone who tried to break free would be considered a terrorist.
The next time someone tries to tell you that your code is "unreadable", ask them how much of their human language they knew when they were 5.
You have a brain: use it or lose it.
>>
>>59053358
>obfuscated code is okay, you're just dumb for not understanding at first glance
Yeah nah, fuck off you basement dweller. Readable code is basic software engineering.
>>
I kinda agree, just because of how retarded natural langues can be, if you ever do NLP you'll see what I mean. But what you're suggesting is beyond retarded.
>>
>>59053386
There's a difference between deliberately overcomplicating things, and writing verbose bloated lowest-common-denominator ENTERPRISE bullshit.
>>
>>59053358
Writing code that works is easy. Writing code that is easy to understand and is maintainable is hard. Sometimes really hard. You should try it.
>>
>>59053416
Good luck finding a good job where you're not writing enterprise bullshit.
>>
>>59053358
Any nigger can make code ridiculously complex, it's not hard.
It takes a genius to make it simple.
>>
>>59053416
>enterprise code conventions are bullshit
Unreadable code might be okay for your little hobby pet projects, but in the professional world, software is an important tool that must be dependable and maintainable. Stop acting superior because you can write little code enigma poems, that might be fun but it's not proper software engineering.
>>
programming languages have few words and generally repetitive rules.
spoken languages have millions of words and thoudands of rules.
>>
>>59053441
I'm an expert programmer not a code monkey. To me, getting high paying work is trivial.
>>
>>59053358
except that coding is a totally arbitrary, artificial construct whereas languages are not, dumbass.
>>
Code sample: http://www.ioccc.org/2015/hou/prog.c
>>
>>59053501
This is what OP's defending.
>>
I keep seeing these fucking cards what fucking game are they from please spoonfeed me
>>
>>59053572
Do you want a quick rundown?
>The Universe bows to the Illuminati TCG
You can read a bit about it here http://yournewswire.com/illuminati-card-game-predictions-coming-true-at-alarming-rate/ but it goes much deeper, the article just scratches the surface.
>>
Your analogy is flawed. Unreadable code typically comes from being too terse, not from being too verbose. If I look at your code and see a bunch of single letter variable names, it's going to be a pain in the ass to tell what you're trying to do. Similarly, if I see a program with inconsistent or non-existent whitespace, itslikereadingsomeshitlikethis.
I me
an
you c
a
n but wh
y wo
ul
d you s
ubje
ct yo
urse
lf t
o t
hat?
>>
>>59053501
What does that do?
Thread posts: 17
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1