Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Code Runs on People

rachelbythebay.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 35 posts

Re: Code Runs on People

#11

Post by vf10a »

qsort wrote: post #4
lmm wrote: post #2

I find this kind of exhortation to be useless in practice, because while everyone agrees that code shouldn't be too clever, no-one agrees on what kind of code is being too clever. For example, I'd argue that using C/C++ at all is probably "too clever" - humans are good at simulating the happy path, but very bad at simulating all the possible different ways such code might actually be executed. But all too often peopl…

Yeah, I agree, it's the old complex/complicated conundrum. What's easier: a super compact representation of the problem that uses high-level concepts, or a verbose listing of dumb procedural code? Chances are it depends on both who you ask and the problem at hand.

> Chances are it depends on both who you ask and the problem at hand.

100% this. Code runs on people but people differ dramatically. A more compact solution that leans on some more advanced language features might be totally acceptable in a team of people fluent with the language. The same problem in a team of generalists working across different tech stacks day-to-day might benefit from a more verbose solution.

As with most things in software it depends on context.

Re: Code Runs on People

#12

Post by vshan »

lmm wrote: post #2

I find this kind of exhortation to be useless in practice, because while everyone agrees that code shouldn't be too clever, no-one agrees on what kind of code is being too clever. For example, I'd argue that using C/C++ at all is probably "too clever" - humans are good at simulating the happy path, but very bad at simulating all the possible different ways such code might actually be executed. But all too often peopl…

I'd argue the opposite really, re: 'using C/C++ at all is probably "too clever"'. By using modern C++ features it is possible to enforce a Rust-like model of ownership, without any memory management (eg. we don't use 'new' or 'delete' anywhere in our codebase). This helps reduce what the author calls "complicated, Klein-bottle-wannabe tricks", labyrinthine Java classes of GC goodness where you don't know where the code begins/ends.

Re: Code Runs on People

#13

Post by another_story »

qsort wrote: post #4
lmm wrote: post #2

I find this kind of exhortation to be useless in practice, because while everyone agrees that code shouldn't be too clever, no-one agrees on what kind of code is being too clever. For example, I'd argue that using C/C++ at all is probably "too clever" - humans are good at simulating the happy path, but very bad at simulating all the possible different ways such code might actually be executed. But all too often peopl…

Yeah, I agree, it's the old complex/complicated conundrum. What's easier: a super compact representation of the problem that uses high-level concepts, or a verbose listing of dumb procedural code? Chances are it depends on both who you ask and the problem at hand.

Be nice if there was a convenient way to have both.

Re: Code Runs on People

#14

Post by lmm »

vshan wrote: post #12
lmm wrote: post #2

I find this kind of exhortation to be useless in practice, because while everyone agrees that code shouldn't be too clever, no-one agrees on what kind of code is being too clever. For example, I'd argue that using C/C++ at all is probably "too clever" - humans are good at simulating the happy path, but very bad at simulating all the possible different ways such code might actually be executed. But all too often peopl…

I'd argue the opposite really, re: 'using C/C++ at all is probably "too clever"'. By using modern C++ features it is possible to enforce a Rust-like model of ownership, without any memory management (eg. we don't use 'new' or 'delete' anywhere in our codebase). This helps reduce what the author calls "complicated, Klein-bottle-wannabe tricks", labyrinthine Java classes of GC goodness where you don't know where the co…

> By using modern C++ features it is possible to enforce a Rust-like model of ownership, without any memory management

C++ fans always claim this is possible, but can never say how to determine whether any given codebase follows their rules, or give examples of e.g. popular open-source libraries that follow that approach. So I've stopped believing in it, personally.

> This helps reduce what the author calls "complicated, Klein-bottle-wannabe tricks", labyrinthine Java classes of GC goodness where you don't know where the code begins/ends.

I find that claim extremely dubious. The problems of such code are very rarely due to not having clear directions on any local ownership relationship, and lifetimes are not actually visible in C++ in any case.

Re: Code Runs on People

#15

Post by orwin »

atq2119 wrote: post #9
selckin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's a workaround for a lacking type system

Not really. It'd be more accurate to say it's a workaround for an existing proper hygienic macro system built on static introspection and code generation.

I'd say its not really a workaround, its a feature. And a hard one to use well. But as someone said in another comment, i think reading the preprocessor in C and especially C++ with the templating is really interesting and help a lot understand how the OG team behind the code used to work. Some tricks are "too clever" for me originally, but with proper documentation on these tricks, i understand tehm and sometime, i have a sudden hindsight/sudden clarity (i don't know how to say it, its a bit like entering the zone?)

Re: Code Runs on People

#16

Post by nudpiedo »

Some of these articles miss the point: very often an expensive complication comes in order to solve a problem that otherwise would have been much lengthier or expensive to solve.

Just as an example: everyone would agree that react is more. Implied than jquery as it has more levels of indirections and abstractions, but it’s strong point has never been to show the cleverness of its authors but to solve state management issues and implement a serie of features otherwise not reachable from previous paradigms. Also for loops where more complex than gotos as they require state (invariant), but today for loops and other forms of loops are widely understood and teach during formal education.

New abstractions and indirections aren’t always necessary and when put in place they need additional documentation and training, but nothing of that was mention in the article.

Re: Code Runs on People

#17

Post by terracottage »

One person's too-clever code is another person's attempt to prevent O(N^2) lines of unmaintainable noob code from being added.

Problem is, I've seen people with years of experience put this crap in. When you show them how much better it can be, they don't tend to take it well. It implies they're not the "senior engineers" their resumes claim.

Re: Code Runs on People

#18

Post by jhgb »

selckin wrote: post #8
asiachick wrote: post #3

I've run into the opposite issue. I like macro lists in C/C++ (not sure what people call them). It's the idea that you create a pre-processor list and then use that list to effectively code generate. For example you can use the list to generate enums, enum to string tables, case statements for all cases, etc.... It's clever but it's also IMO best practice because it prevents bugs. The reason they're used is it preven…

it's a workaround for a lacking type system

Sounds like that it's more a workaround for lacking a proper macro system.

Re: Code Runs on People

#19

Post by jamesdhutton »

lmm wrote: post #2

I find this kind of exhortation to be useless in practice, because while everyone agrees that code shouldn't be too clever, no-one agrees on what kind of code is being too clever. For example, I'd argue that using C/C++ at all is probably "too clever" - humans are good at simulating the happy path, but very bad at simulating all the possible different ways such code might actually be executed. But all too often peopl…

I think “too clever” often equates to “too short.” There is real intellectual pleasure in figuring out how to express an algorithm in as few lines as possible. I personally love doing this. And, usually, shorter code is better code. But I have seen many cases where people take this too far. People reduce their code so much that it becomes incomprehensible. (No doubt I have been guilty of this.) So to your question of what is “too clever” I would say that I would prefer 10 lines of readable code to 1 line of unreadable code.

Re: Code Runs on People

#20

Post by indigochill »

dustinmoris wrote: post #6

I agree with the larger point being made, but equally I’m getting a bit tired of statements like these: > “ If it takes an hour to figure out what's going on, well, that's an hour that wasn't spent doing something else more useful and interesting.” What exactly is “doing something else more useful”? As a software engineer your main job (yes I know talking to stakeholders and blah) is to write and to read code. If as…

> If as a software developer you optimise for writing as little code as possible and not having to spend much time reading code either then what exactly are you working on?

Minimizing code read/written _per unit of work_. The less code you have to work with for a particular task, the more tasks you can accomplish in a fixed time frame. I'd much rather read and understand three tasks in an hour than only one.

Post reply on HN