Timeline for Does simplicity always improve Readability?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6, 2011 at 22:01 | comment | added | S.Lott | I didn't realize that I had insisted that there is no subjectivity in the definition of "simplicity". I'm not sure that it matters. I'm trying to make one tiny point. Simplicity is always more readable. That's all. You can read more into it, I suppose. But I'm really only making one claim. If it's simpler, then it's easier to read. That's it. | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 19:22 | comment | added | user8709 | and insisting that there is no subjectivity in the definition of "simplicity", and that only your definition is valid, doesn't count as sophistry? It's not just me - others have acknowledged that a little extra complexity, e.g. to better express intent, can improve readability in some cases. | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 19:12 | comment | added | S.Lott | "you seem to claim moving the details somewhere else means they don't exist". False. Sorry. Every day, every human simplifies the world to make it readable/understandable. Every day. Every human. Simplicity == Readability. They're not "circular". They're the same thing. A longer name is only "more complex" if somehow "concept" == "letter". True when learning to read. Not true when documenting software. | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 19:06 | comment | added | user8709 | a sophistry award from you is something to by truly proud of, but I still have doubts. A longer variable name improves readability, but does it improve simplicity? Only if you define simplicity in a way that ensures that, which is circular. There's cases where more complexity means more readability, such as your own abstracting-away-details arguments elsewhere in this question - you seem to claim moving the details somewhere else means they don't exist, though you've denied that here. As we clearly won't agree on this, it's time to exchange sophistry medals and move on. | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 18:48 | comment | added | S.Lott | @Steve314: You win the sophistry award in my book. Simplicity always means readability. It's the way our brains work. Achieving it is hard. But simplicity == readability. Always. Because our brains always work that way. Always. | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 18:32 | comment | added | user8709 | Actually, I see my mistake. Your answer starts by stating "Always? - YES", meaning that simplicity always == readability. But in your "always worthwhile since it always improves readability" line, which my 'I still doubt the "always"' references, you say "the right level of simplicity" (my emphasis). If you're contradicting yourself, and the right level isn't always the minimum so that similicity and readability don't necessarily go together, then I was mistaken in my 'I doubt the "always"'. The right (but not necessarily minimal) level of simplicity is necessary for optimal readability. | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 18:28 | comment | added | S.Lott | @Steve314: No one said it was "eliminated" (I don't think). It was made "readable". That's the point. And it's always made readable. | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 18:16 | comment | added | user8709 | You seem to be ignoring the fact that once you've "abstracted detail away" from one particular chunk, that detail still exists somewhere else and still has to be managed - plus you also have the complexity of dealing with the abstraction mechanism. That's less simplicity, yet (done properly) more readability. Moving detail somewhere else doesn't eliminate it - it still exists, just in a different place. It's obviously useful for managing complexity, but it isn't magic. | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 17:03 | comment | added | S.Lott |
@Steve314: What does but I still doubt the "always" mean? We always do it. It's hard to see a time when we don't do it. Do you have an example of when we fail to chunk, abstract or summarize?
|
|
| Dec 6, 2011 at 11:56 | comment | added | user8709 | yes, we do. I never said otherwise. | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 11:39 | comment | added | S.Lott | @Steve314: We always abstract, chunk and summarize to help ourselves understand things. Always. Chunking, abstracting, summarizing ("simplifying") is something we always do. We just do. It's how our brains apprehend reality. Simplification always improves readability, and can always be done. | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 11:27 | comment | added | user8709 | What I don't deny - chunking is done all the time and is a good idea. What I deny - that there's a definitive objective rule for where the boundaries should be between chunks. My arguments may be more pedantic than helpful, but I still doubt the "always" in "always improves readability". | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 10:54 | comment | added | S.Lott | @Steve314: Scare quotes? No. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chunking all seem to be similar in that they describe simplification through chunking. (Except the guitar technique, that seems different.) The quotes are there because there are so many alternate terms for abstraction, chunking, summarizing, etc. If I pick just one everyone objects that abstraction isn't the same thing as chunking. The quotes are there to emphasize that this is somehow debatable. Yet. It's clearly done all the time and seems to be a natural human tendency. | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 8:12 | comment | added | user8709 | I can't help thinking that your scare-quotes are there because you're aware that "concept" and "chunk" are themselves subjective. One persons single concept is another persons amalgam of three distinct ideas. It's hard to have an absolute and objective measure of subjective stuff. | |
| Dec 6, 2011 at 0:43 | history | answered | S.Lott | CC BY-SA 3.0 |