Re: Should I leave behind beautiful code or readable code?

Leave beautiful code, which is readable code. If it weren't, how could you see its beauty?

--shmem

_($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo.  G°\        /
                              /\_¯/(q    /
----------------------------  \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."·
");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}

Comment on Re: Should I leave behind beautiful code or readable code?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Should I leave behind beautiful code or readable code? by MaxKlokan (Monk) on Apr 02, 2007 at 08:43 UTC
I agree with you, but few monks in this thread seems to have noticed that in my OP I wrote "readable to the non-initiated" assuming that for a moderately experienced Perl programmer the code would be readable as such.	[reply]
Re^3: Should I leave behind beautiful code or readable code? by shmem (Chancellor) on Apr 02, 2007 at 09:19 UTC
Kernighan comes to mind - "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." As a rule of thumb and corollary to that I'd say: Leave behind code that you understand at a glance, even were you looking at it some time from writing it. Others may still have to gnaw a bit - but the uninitiated will learn something, right? "Readable to the non-initiated" is malleable - initiated to what level? Acolyte, Friar, Hermit? :-) --shmem _($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo. G°\ / /\_¯/(q / ---------------------------- \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."· ");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}	[reply]