ends up being just the aesthetics of open source, because that's the code we're allowed to see
reality is the battlefield
- she/they (pl)
- breadthcharge.net/
the first line goes in Cohost embeds
🐥 I am not embroiled in any legal battle
🐦 other than battles that are legal 🎮
I speak to the universe and it speaks back, in it's own way.
mastodon
email: contact at breadthcharge dot net
I live on the northeast coast of the US.
'non-functional programmer'. 'far left'.
conceptual midwife.
https://cohost.org/NireBryce/post/4929459-here-s-my-five-minut
If you can see the "show contact info" dropdown below, I follow you. If you want me to, ask and I'll think about it.
You must log in to comment.
in reply to @NireBryce's post:
relevant to this thought, but PL flavoured: some folks built a programming language based on actual studies and surveys testing Human Understandability. (and gave a talk at strangeloop about it in 2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEFrE6cgVNY https://quorumlanguage.com/
wonder what, if anything, exists looking at the bigger structural "good code" type stuff in the same way.
imo because it's inherently subjective, you can't really study it in any reasonable timeframe
But I more mean that, Maybe there's better ways of writing code, and you just never see them as more than a small % of the industry and maybe bring them to OSS, but in general things lauded as Good Code in the past (busy, none off top of my head) keeps being open source and it makes me wonder