Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:47:00 12/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2005 at 17:33:12, Tord Romstad wrote: >On December 22, 2005 at 15:32:56, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>Very pretty. > >A few years ago, I used to think code like this was very >cool, and I loved to use it. Since then, my programming >style and aesthetics have changed a lot, and I don't like >this kind of code at all. > >Basically, I have developed a strong dislike for all sorts of >clever, but opaque tricks. I prefer my program to be a >sequence of small, natural steps which are easy to follow, >and where the reader can easily understand both what the >code does and how it works. I want my programs to >solve puzzles (in a very wide sense of the word, of course), >and not to be puzzles themselves. > >My mathematical aesthetics are similar. I hate to include >clever and poorly motivated tricks in my proofs, even when >they are simple and logically correct. Everything should be >a progression of small and completely obvious-looking >steps, giving the reader the feeling that she could easily >have done the same work herself. > >To me, beauty is the art of making something very difficult >appear really simple. > >>I always enjoy your posts. > >And so do I. I greatly admire code like Gerd's bitscan >algorithm (as well as the countless other amazingly clever >little tricks he have posted over the years), and I love >trying to figure out how it works; I am just not able to >see any great beauty in it. It resembles my reaction to >Beethoven's music. :-) This last remark is very odd to me. Beethoven's music is [to me] very simple patterns. [Fur Elise and the 5th Symphony are obvious and clear examples of it]. So if anything approaches the simple and obvious while elegant approach, it should be Beethoven.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.