Michael Tobis wrote: >John Bokma wrote: >>"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>Ok I'm going to end with a flamebait - but I would posit, ALL OTHER >>>THINGS BEING EQUAL - that a smaller number of characters and lines in >>>code is more maintainable than larger number of characters and lines in >>>the code. >>> >>And I think that's why a lot of people posted very negative, in the hope >>that people would not be tempted to make the above very dumb statement. >Since it's too late to avoid such temptation, could you explain why you >are willing to go so far as to call that statement "very dumb"?
The problem with the idea is that "simplicity" is not quite equal to "a smaller number of characters". For example, of each of the following pairs, which is "clearer": ls list cp copy mv move Or to ask it another way, "Which is easier to *read*?" Although I have long since come to take the former spellings for granted, and they are undeniably shorter, the latter would've actually been easier for people to remember. The insistence of using the longer, more mnemonic form is a major characteristic of Python. The wisdom behind this is that Python's design takes into account the observation that source code is read many times more than it is written. To do this, it sacrifices some brevity compared to other languages (the classic example being Perl which uses lots of arcane symbols and tends to use shorter, more Unix-like naming). However, this turns out to be a big win, in that you don't waste so much time trying to remember abbreviated names. There are, for example several ways of abbreviating a word like "quantity": q Q quant qtty quanty qnty Qtty QNT etc. But there's only one "standard spelling". If I only have to remember that "Python prefers to use the standard spelling" as a rule of thumb, then I will usually get the right answer (there are still significant exceptions such as "dict" instead of "dictionary" and "def" instead of "define" -- but they are fewer than in most languages). Anyway, since humans tend to parse whole words as symbols when reading, rather than individual characters, the choice between using symbols or abbreviations versus whole standard-form words is not believed to matter (I think it would be a strong claim to say that this is proven, but it does seem likely to me). Frankly, even when typing, I find it slightly easier to type "unmount" than "umount" -- I always pause after the "u" to remember the funky Unix spelling. It's only a split-second delay, but those things add up, and each one represents a possible bug, if the output is source code. Even "dictionary" is hardly different from "dict" -- I've already learned to type common English morphemes without thinking about the process, so it just doesn't make any difference from my PoV. That's why I always find the hoops people will jump through to avoid typing a couple of extra keystrokes to be silly (are they typing with their noses?* ;-) ). It would frankly be harder for me to remember the extra mechanics than to just type the extra letters. The claim is ironic -- even counter-intuitive -- considering this conventional lore. But the real point is that no one here can make any reasonably objective assessment of whether your "data" is meaningful unless you post examples. That's what creates the hostility, I think. Cheers, Terry *With apologies to anyone who's actually using assistive tech to type their code -- but I'm sure you already know how to use macros to get what you want typed. -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
