Comments on: Simple code is music to my ears http://www.digitaldimsum.co.uk/2008/08/12/simple-code-is-music-to-my-ears/ Bite sized info snacks for the digital generation Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:01:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Serene Yew http://www.digitaldimsum.co.uk/2008/08/12/simple-code-is-music-to-my-ears/comment-page-1/#comment-773 Serene Yew Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:01:14 +0000 http://www.digitaldimsum.co.uk/?p=45#comment-773 There is an interesting tool that does something like that, called Flog (for Ruby) http://ruby.sadi.st/Flog.html There is an interesting tool that does something like that, called Flog (for Ruby)

http://ruby.sadi.st/Flog.html

]]> By: Peter Gillard-Moss http://www.digitaldimsum.co.uk/2008/08/12/simple-code-is-music-to-my-ears/comment-page-1/#comment-665 Peter Gillard-Moss Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:31:22 +0000 http://www.digitaldimsum.co.uk/?p=45#comment-665 >> then I start quaking like an intellectual weakling knowing that I’m going to endure much pain trying to grok what was in that coding genius’ mind when they wrote it I am coming to a similar conclusion that my preference for writing and working with simple, elegant code comes from my stupidity and lack of intellect. People aren't writing difficult to understand code it's just that they are geniuses who can easily grok highly complex classes several hundred lines long. Who needs things such as encapsulation, loose coupling and high cohesion when your brain can compute cyclic complexities of over 1000? Where's the intellectual challenge of decoding a simple class when you're a human Turing machine? OOP principles are for intellectual wimps. >> then I start quaking like an intellectual weakling knowing that I’m going to endure much pain trying to grok what was in that coding genius’ mind when they wrote it

I am coming to a similar conclusion that my preference for writing and working with simple, elegant code comes from my stupidity and lack of intellect. People aren’t writing difficult to understand code it’s just that they are geniuses who can easily grok highly complex classes several hundred lines long.

Who needs things such as encapsulation, loose coupling and high cohesion when your brain can compute cyclic complexities of over 1000? Where’s the intellectual challenge of decoding a simple class when you’re a human Turing machine? OOP principles are for intellectual wimps.

]]> By: keith ray http://www.digitaldimsum.co.uk/2008/08/12/simple-code-is-music-to-my-ears/comment-page-1/#comment-661 keith ray Thu, 14 Aug 2008 01:48:46 +0000 http://www.digitaldimsum.co.uk/?p=45#comment-661 We need good editors and IDEs to help figure out this legacy code (C and C are pretty bad, though I'm sure there's some nasty Java out there_, but we also need to keep people from using those good editors or IDEs to create that legacy code. What if we create a new, hip, language that just happens to only allow ~20 methods in a class, ~20 lines of code per method, no more than 2 layers of nesting in a method, no more than 4 arguments to a method, etc.... and no Statics nor Singletons! We need good editors and IDEs to help figure out this legacy code (C and C are pretty bad, though I’m sure there’s some nasty Java out there_, but we also need to keep people from using those good editors or IDEs to create that legacy code.

What if we create a new, hip, language that just happens to only allow ~20 methods in a class, ~20 lines of code per method, no more than 2 layers of nesting in a method, no more than 4 arguments to a method, etc…. and no Statics nor Singletons!

]]>