We write to make it readable.
Yes, we spend 20% of our coding time to produce working code, and rest of 80% time in beautifying and indenting our code. We love to make our code more and more readable.
We don't beat around the bush.
We write very specific. We hate un-necessary details. We try to communicate the message (the solution) as early as possible.
We love to keep it simple.
We as a code writer, don't try to complicate things. We feel much better when we see our solution simple. That's why we say KISS (keep it simple, stupid!).
We don't repeat Information.
yes, we believe in DRY (don't repeat yourself) principle. we represent one information at only one place. Though many novice developers make mistake to represent information twice and thrice in their code. This brings a serious problem.
We don't count pages.
We developers, (true developer) feels very productive when we delete LOC( line of code). Most managers in our company think that LOC is true measure of our productivity, but we don't. We love to delete code, and our most productive time is spent in deleting Code.
We are open.
As an innovator, we try to present idea, even if we are scared that idea can be stolen. We don't think hiding an idea makes any kind of sense.
We are least bothered, when it comes to plagiarism.
Unlike literary writers, we are less concerned about plagiarism. We love if someone copy our code. We take it as a good news. in-fact the whole open source philosophy is based on it. We just request to mention our name in the code, but if they don't mention we don't bother.
Well, I write both codes and literary stuff(sometimes). Let me just even up the platform saying that both are pretty much same :P First of all, stuff like KISS and DRY come from literary terms, and were not implemented by someone to just define coding techniques :P Now, point by point, yay! ^.^
ReplyDelete"We make it more readable"
Well, as is with coding, when one writes, say, a story, its necessary that the flow of plot is in a fluid manner. A thing can be written in different orders to convey the same meaning. One spends a lot of time, trying to figure out what is the best way to write such that the meaning is conveyed to the reader with least effort. its not like someone just writes a story in one sitting and its done. Dont you remember seeing how they show writers, scribbling and crumbling hundreds of paper. They do that for making it more readable.
Not Beating around the bush
Does this mean that ALL writers usually beat around the bush? I dont know what does that means. There are different kinds of people, this is like comparing an ideal characteristic of someone who should write code, with characters of writers who are inexperienced.
Think of this way, many people store the programs output in logs to keep record, instead of "conveying the result as early as possible" inst that, according to you "beating around the bush"
"Keep it simple"
Writing stories involving many characters and then giving them depth by adding details about them is not making it complicated, its like having lots of functions and having their own definitions.
A coder tries to achieve the result by using as less functions as possible, without making the code look all cramped up. Where as a story is judged as something good when there is depth and variety in the characters.
"No repetition"
I thought re-using code was one of the advantages of software development. Why write a piece of code, again when you call functions again and again, right?
And I dont see where and one considers that writing information again and again in a story is a good thing.
"We dont count pages"
This is just like the "keep it simple" thing. There are short stories and there are novels. People actually WANT to read long stories, and its not like a writer has some pages in his minds and stretches the stories. This is done only when you are having a commercial periodical project and the main aim is just to earn money.
That like saying how kids in schools, try to extend the lines of code to make it look better. And then taking them as the standard to compare, forgetting that it is not the aim of all programmers.
"Open source"
It is an idealogy that is quite popular and good. It makes sense when you say that you have written a code and you are allowing for others to take and make it better.
Its similar to how anyone can take a story and write fan fiction and other things related to its universe. Its like those remake movies, or those books like "pride and prejudice and zombies"
No one says "Dont take my story and try to use your own ideas on it" Basically every new story you see is inspired from the old one in some way or the other.
Also, not everyone is "pro open source" Its once again, a comparison between a small part of the larger picture, and the comparing it with another small part.
--To be continued--
part 2
ReplyDelete--
"Least bothered when it comes to plagiarism:
Again you are only talking about a few people and conveying it as something that is true for all. There are Thousands of people out there who are ready to sue you when they see that you have used a piece of code they have written, without their permission.
Also, if someone uses your open source program and gets popular and never even addresses you or your project in the credits. There will be one nice situation created.
Think of MS for instance, now if someone used directx for their project never got it licensed, or just copied the source of an open source project from them and never gave credits. All this will create a great tamasha.
It is not that everyone is all hippie and cool with free exchange like RMS :P
----
Basically, I dont know where you got the idea that people consider (good)(every) writer to be someone who
DOESNT try to make his writing readable,
Fills stories with filler arcs
Keeps on saying the same things again and again
writes only to fill pages
and hates it when people write fan fiction for your works.
What you have written down are ideal characteristics of what a coder should do (not that EVERYONE follows those) and tried to say that it is not followed by writers of other kind. Which I disagree with. There are all kinds of people in all kinds of fields.
Its like saying dogs are better than cats as pets.
@Reeteshifier
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading and putting comment.. Its really a value-add to my blog.
Though the blog is presented in way that i am attacking literary writers, but this is not the primary intent.
Primary intent of the blog is to present a ideal way of code writing. We often find coders at our work place, who write code which is not readable and unnecessarily complex. This is just a way to educate them, by sitting on their side.
And I see you realising it in your second part of the comment..
Thanks again for putting your comments.