Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 14:33:12 12/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
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. :-) Tord
This page took 0.01 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.