Hello! Phil Dawes' Stuff is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.
Community Page
- phildawes.net/blog/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- Hi, Do you feel that your agility in Factor has improved since this post? Roger
- Thanks for the pointer - I've cleaned up the spam and regrettably added some moderation
- I'm loving the comments thread for this post. Can't decide whether to get my upholstery cleaned or do something about my fast food obesity.
- Cool - thanks Eric
- I pasted some code that does the moving sum in factor. http://paste.factorcode.org/paste?id=569#282
Jump to original thread »
Michael Feathers makes, I think, an important step forward in assisting fruitful programming language debates by providing new vocabulary to talk about simplicity.
He adds another dimension (literally!) by introducing a continuum between ‘low simplicity’ and &%2 ... Continue reading »
He adds another dimension (literally!) by introducing a continuum between ‘low simplicity’ and &%2 ... Continue reading »
2 år dage siden
For example, is it simple in terms of writting the original code, or in terms of someone else trying to understand and maintain it? The two are not necessarily the same.
It also makes a difference in terms of whether the code is standalone (e.g. the miles/kilometer example in the original article) of if it is working with another construct/language. For example, code (e.g. in PHP) used to interact with a database (e.g. MySQL). If the underlying concepts and constructs of the code language reflect that of the database, it is much easier to understand than if they are different.
My point is that the discussion of low/high simplicity is more meaningful within a context.